Chapter IX

GREEK LANDS AND THE BASIS OF CHRONOLOGY

We have seen in the last chapter that different types of leaf-shaped swords have been disseminated throughout various quarters of Europe, and we have found reason for believing that in Celtic lands at least their appearance signified a hostile invasion. If, as may well be the case, the same is true of other parts of Europe, we are dealing with a series of invasions, all starting from somewhere within the Celtic cradle, and affecting almost every part of the continent. Our purpose in this work is not so much to record evidence as to interpret it, to restore the main features of early history rather than to describe archæological remains. Now the backbone of history is chronology, and we cannot interpret our evidence satisfactorily unless we can place it in its true chronological setting. In discussing the seven types of swords an endeavour was made to arrange them in an orderly sequence, and thus to set up a relative chronology. In this chapter a positive system of dating will be attempted.

It is clear that it is to the south-east that we must first look for help, for in Greek lands documentary evidence reaches back some centuries further than it does elsewhere in Europe, and is preceded by an immense mass of tradition, much of which clearly belongs more to legend than to myth. These legends, moreover, have received intensive study, and their contents have been brought into line with archæological data.[353] Further than this we have the two swords found in Egypt, one of them engraved with a monarch’s name, so that a study of these south-eastern specimens should enable us to obtain one point, at least, in our system of dates.

Now it has been pointed out by Sir William Ridgeway[354] that certain people, whom he calls “Achæans,” entered Greece from the north, bringing with them certain elements of culture, which can best be matched in the Danube basin. These, according to the traditions preserved in the Iliad, were the immediate ancestors of the heroes of the Trojan War. Recently Dr. Wace,[355] who has made a careful study of the pre-Hellenic remains of the mainland of Greece, especially of the pottery, has pointed out that there is but one break in the ceramic evolution of that region, the introduction of geometric ware. This is, he believes, best explained by equating it with the Dorian invasion, which took place some generations after the siege of Troy. Dr. Wace has certainly made out a strong case, and we must accept his view that no invasion, in the strict sense of the term, preceded that of the Dorians; but while he would have us scrap the “Achæan” hypothesis in its entirety, we must, I think, consider awhile before dismissing all the evidence that Sir William Ridgeway has accumulated.

Much of Ridgeway’s archæological evidence is Hallstatt in type and, apparently at least, Hallstatt in date, and may well equate better with the Dorian than the “Achæan” movement, but the legends are not to be lightly swept aside, and we have the swords, which are admittedly pre-geometric, and so pre-Dorian, and may well antedate also the Trojan War. There is also the introduction into southern Greece of a type of palace, which seems to have developed in a more northerly clime.[356] We have, therefore, evidence for some intrusive elements entering Greek lands from the Danube basin, bringing with them swords of Central European type, a new type of domestic architecture, and, we may well believe, certain deities and beliefs of more northern origin,[357] yet the continuity of the ceramic culture shows that there had been no general displacement of the population.

Before attempting to decide between these conflicting views, it may be wise to consider the term “Achæan.” By this I mean only those people, who are the subject of Sir William Ridgeway’s hypothesis, and who organised the attack upon Priam’s Troy. They may, for all we know, be a people or merely a class, and their connection with the Achæans of the Peloponnese, discussed by Herodotus,[358] may be very remote. It seems clear, in fact, that the term as used by Herodotus connoted something very different from what the term meant to Homer, and what it signifies in the pages of Ridgeway.

Now the presence of these leaf-shaped swords in pre-Dorian Greece seems to postulate the presence of intruders from the Danube basin; the paucity of their number, all the more striking when we consider the extent of the excavations carried out in Greek lands, seems to indicate that these intruders were few. These swords had been, as we have seen, invented by the Nordic steppe-folk in Central Europe, and may sometimes have been used by their Alpine subjects. But for a few strangers to intrude into a foreign land needs on their part considerable courage and the spirit of adventure, features which we have found characteristic of the Nordic steppe-folk, and conspicuously lacking among the Alpines. We may, therefore, take it for granted that these intruders, who introduced the leaf-shaped swords into Greek lands, were of Nordic type and temperament.

The heroes of the Trojan War, as Ridgeway has pointed out, were newcomers to the land.[359] In most cases their grandfathers are mentioned, seldom a great-grandfather, unless it is to state that he was a god. Sometimes even the grandfather was a deity, as in the case of Polypoites, but usually when this is so we have reason for believing that the hero, like Nestor, the grandson of Poseidon, was an old man. The earliest ancestor was sometimes Zeus, but usually the pedigree is not actually traced to the divine forefather. In a large number of cases, especially of the minor heroes, they are said to be of the stock of Ares. Dr. Hall has suggested that Ares and his mistress Hera were the chief deities of these northern invaders.[360]

We hear very little in the Iliad of these first human ancestors of the “Achæans,” nor has later Greek legend much more to say about most of them. We have, however, various stories of heroes, arriving alone like Theseus, Perseus, Herakles, and Peleus, or perhaps accompanied by one friend like Amphitryon, at some Greek city. The hero is well received by the king of the city, and often relieves him of some difficulty, whether it be the repulse of a hostile attack, as in the case of Theseus and the Pallantids, or Amphitryon and the Telebœans, the punishment of robbers, such as Periphates, Sinis, Sciron, Cercyon or Damastes, or the slaying of wild beasts like the Cromyon sow, the Marathon bull, the Cadmeian fox, or the various monsters slain by Herakles. The king honours the visitor, the princess, like Ariadne, Comœtho or Polymela, falls in love with him, then some unfortunate accident occurs, as was the case with Ægeus, Acrisius, and Eurytion, and the king is slain. The hero then ascends the throne, marries the princess, and, as the fairy tales say, they lived happily ever after. Such is the almost universal burden of Greek legend, as it is of the _märchen_, which grew up in the northern forests.

It has been usual to interpret the stories of these heroes as referring to invading peoples, and to believe that the name of the chief only has survived, whereas the memory of the people has perished. That such was often the case is likely, but when dealing with the first “Achæan” intruders we must guard ourselves against taking this for granted. Dr. Wace’s arguments are all against the arrival of a fresh people at this time, for there is no introduction of new styles of pottery; on the other hand, there is nothing in his evidence antagonistic to the view that a few northern heroes, coming unaccompanied by men-at-arms, succeeded in making themselves masters of the cities of pre-Hellenic Greece. It is possible that in this case, as in many others, nineteenth century scholarship has been too clever and too critical, and that the legends as they have come down to us are nearer to the truth than the amendments which have been suggested.[361]

We shall be able to judge better if we look at the actions of Nordics in later times. At the downfall of the Roman empire it was not unusual for quite small bands of Nordics to become masters of even large territories; some of the Norsemen made themselves, single-handed, kings of the cities in South Russia. Later Rollo, with but a handful of men, became Duke of Normandy and defied the power of the Carolingian monarch; later still small groups of Normans conquered Sicily, and set up their rule in many places in the Mediterranean region. Lastly, how often have Englishmen, sometimes quite alone, gained great influence in large communities of aliens, and been in a position to make themselves kings had they not preferred to annex the community to the British Empire? Thus has much of the Empire been built up. But by far the best parallel is the case of the first Rajah of Sarawak.

When such events have taken place in historical times, even in our own day, we cannot consider it as impossible that wandering Nordic heroes from the Danube basin, accompanied perhaps by a faithful henchman, should have found it possible to establish themselves as kings over the trading cities of Mycenean Greece.

But let us glance for a moment at these trading cities and their inhabitants. The original people of the Greek mainland, like the bulk of the present population, seem to have been of that eastern Alpine or Dinaric type, scarcely distinguishable from the bulk of the population of Asia Minor. These are tall dark people, with small but broad heads, which are very high and somewhat conical at the top, though sometimes the excessively flattened occiput gives the impression that the head has been sliced from the top of the forehead to the back of the neck. As far as one can judge from the available evidence, these were the only inhabitants of the bulk of the peninsula, until coastal settlements were made by the Cretans, some in the second Middle Minoan period, but most of them at the beginning of the Late Minoan.[362]

The original inhabitants of Crete seem to have been typical members of the Mediterranean race, but during Early Minoan times we find a few broad-headed people arriving in the east of the island, and gradually spreading over the eastern half.[363] It has been taken for granted, quite naturally, that this broad-headed infusion came from Asia Minor, the population of which at that time must have been exclusively broad-headed. But about the time that these broad-heads appear in Crete we find evidence in the island of the development of the copper mines at Gournia,[364] and of the accumulation of gold ornaments, such as the treasure of Mochlos.[365] There are also signs of the existence of an oversea commerce and of a trade in olive oil with Egypt.[366]

This leads us to wonder whether these broad-heads belonged to wanderers from Anatolia, or whether it is not more probable that here we have evidence of the arrival of the Prospectors, who seem always to be the organisers of oversea trade and of mining operations. We must remember too, that by 2800 /B.C./, not long after the beginning of the Early Minoan period, the Sumerians were trading in the Mediterranean, and knew, if they had not already settled in, Crete.[367]

These are details of which we cannot speak with certainty at present, but all the isolated data available are best explained by believing that the great activities of the trade in the Ægean and especially in Crete were organised by and were in the hands of Prospectors, who had come originally, though not necessarily directly, from the Persian Gulf, and who were employing the Mediterranean aborigines as mariners, miners and craftsmen. When in Middle and Late Minoan times these Cretans made settlements on the mainland, in the Argolid, in Bœotia, and at Pylos, settlements which are recorded in the legends of Danaus, Cadmus and Neleus, we can well believe that, while some of their subjects were of the Mediterranean race, and others, perhaps, drawn from the Alpine aborigines of the mainland, the rulers were in all cases Prospectors.

Professor Ure[368] has recently shown us that in Greek lands, as well as in renaissance Italy, we find two types of rulers, who may be described as Kings and Tyrants. The king is a military chief, of aristocratic bearing and origin, and one more often interested in the territory than in the city. The tyrant, on the other hand, is essentially a merchant or a business man, his outlook bourgeois, and he rules over a city and its trading connections, rather than over a wide expanse of land. In Greece, Ure believes, the introduction of metal currency caused the earlier kings to be replaced by these tyrants or merchant princes. He has supported his thesis by a vast mass of evidence, which we need not repeat here, but in his conclusions I think we may see the supplanting of the Nordic lord by the Prospector, as times became more settled and trade, rather than fighting, became the more important occupation.

Many of Ure’s arguments would apply equally to the Minoan age, when piracy had been put down and oversea trade was booming. The rise of the Greek tyrants was due, he thinks, to the rise of a coinage, just as the modern plutocrat has risen to power on the development of paper currency; the Minoan tyrant, comes to the front as metal, an easily portable and exchangeable commodity, succeeds flint or obsidian. It was into these trading cities, each governed by a Prospector tyrant, that I believe these Nordic “Achæan” adventurers to have arrived from the Danube basin with their leaf-shaped swords.

Now there are two classes of men, both of them wielding large powers over others, whose characters have been sharply contrasted by many writers. The kingly type is found in noblemen, at any rate of the old school, mediæval knights, landed proprietors and officers of the army and navy; the same traditions hold good in the upper ranks, at least, of the civil service and among the professional classes. The relations between these lords and the people committed to their charge, whether subjects, tenants or employés, are usually good, and friction rarely arises unless the subject class is of an alien race. These kings or lords have usually been able to retain for generations the respect of their subjects, often to inspire very great love and devotion.

On the other hand the leader, whose claim to his position rests only upon wealth or the power to create wealth, is often even extravagantly generous, and has usually ingratiating manners, which are in sharp distinction from the _hauteur_ which is more characteristic of the lord; yet he rarely makes himself loved or even liked by those dependent on him, even though his actions be kind and his judgments just. This contrast has furnished a theme to many writers, and has been ably summarised by Ure,[369] who quotes in support pregnant passages from the works of H. G. Wells[370] and William James.[371] Such differences, Ure thinks, distinguished the king from the tyrant, and the same contrast, I would suggest, held good between the “Achæan” heroes and the rulers of the Minoan cities.

We have seen reason for believing that the population of the Minoan cities of Greece consisted of Mediterraneans and perhaps some few Alpines, under the rule of a Prospector tyrant. The latter’s rule was possibly just, he made money for his city, but most of all for himself, and, in spite of occasional fits of lavish generosity, he would not have been popular. He was engaged in exploiting the proletariat, and they were fully conscious of the fact. Though his manner was outwardly ingratiating, he was distrusted by his subjects, who felt that they were but pawns in his game. Thus the sword swayed over his head as over that of Damocles, held only by a slender thread; revolutions or rumours of revolutions were of constant occurrence, and the tyrant, intent on money making, had little leisure or inclination, even if he had the capacity, for maintaining order or of inspiring loyalty in the hearts of his subjects.

We can well imagine that the arrival in such a community of one or two northern barbarians, rough and rude, but strong and honest, would have been like a breath of fresh air entering a stuffy room. The tyrant would have welcomed a man who could put down highwaymen or lead his mercenaries to battle. He would, perhaps, have made him chief of his police or generalissimo of the town forces, and, as the hero restored law and order and kept the populace quiet, he would have promised him much reward, including perhaps his daughter’s hand. All would have gone well until the tyrant, with the instinct of the Prospector to make a bargain and to get something for nothing, endeavoured, like Laomedon of Troy, to cheat his Nordic ally or to offer him a base substitute for promises made.

The Nordic, as incapable of understanding such double-dealing as of thus acting himself, would quite naturally have been incensed. We can picture him accusing the tyrant of dishonesty and ejecting him from his palace, when he would have fallen a speedy victim to the anger of his subjects. The hero would have placed himself upon the vacant throne with the help and goodwill of the people, who had admired his strength, courage and fair dealing. Lastly, he would, perhaps, have married the daughter of his predecessor, not so much from romantic motives as to establish more completely his right to the throne, for, despite what has been written to the contrary, some form of matrilinear succession seems to have obtained in Minoan Greece.[372]

The Greek legends referring to the early heroes are full of such details, and the above imaginary sketch may be taken as a composite picture of the kind of events which took place, in all probability, in many a city of pre-Hellenic Greece, as the leaf-shaped swords first made their appearance.

We have, hitherto, taken it for granted that these “Achæan” intruders were Nordic, and our reasons have been mainly the presence of the swords, the northern character of their palaces and the fact that such enterprises are in keeping with the subsequent behaviour of Nordic adventurers. But the identification, perhaps, requires further proof. The Nordics as we know were tall, fair and long-headed; how does this agree with what we know of the “Achæan” heroes and their forbears?

The whole tenour of the legends, attributing to them deeds requiring strength and endurance, certainly suggests that the heroes were considered in later days to have been above the average in stature. That they were fair-haired has been taken for granted by many writers.[373] It has been suggested, however, that the fact that Menelaus was called fair, signifies that he was in this respect an exception to the rule, and that the others were as dark as the majority of modern Greeks. Moreover, it has been pointed out that ξανθὀς may only mean brown, and that Menelaus had brown hair.[374]

The first argument certainly carries some weight, and does seem to imply that there was something exceptional in Menelaus’ fair hair. But the Atreidæ, according to fifth century legend, were Pelopids, and this is hinted, though not expressly stated, in the Iliad. Now other legends bring Pelops from Phrygia, though, of course, this may only signify that he was a Phrygian, who left the Briges before their departure for Asia. But the Pelopidæ, in their customs, differed from the other “Achæans.” Later legend attributes to them a type of endogamy, interpreted afterwards as incest, infant sacrifice, and cannibalistic habits. Æschylus[375] looks upon these customs as crimes, and attributes them to a curse upon the House of Tantalus. I think, however, we may see in the Pelopids, and perhaps in other groups of _op_ peoples, some non-Nordic type, most probably Alpines of some kind, who had accompanied the “Achæan” heroes southwards. That one of these should be fair-haired would be unusual, though by no means impossible if he had had a Nordic ancestress. If ξανθὀς ever meant brown it must have meant light brown or auburn, and its force would be equally as great as if it meant flaxen; the Mediterraneans and eastern Alpines never have light brown hair; it is not uncommon among Nordics.

Lastly we may take the case of the Thracians, who, as we have seen, were almost certainly the stock from which the “Achæans” were derived. According to Ridgeway[376] some of these were fair and some dark, that is to say a fair Nordic strain had entered a land peopled with dark Alpines, and the result was a red-haired strain (πυρρὀς), as is often the case when fair and dark strains have mixed.[377]

We have no right to expect from Homer, or any other Greek writer, an account of the head-form of the “Achæan” heroes. Nevertheless we find in the Iliad a word which gives us some indication on this point.[378] It is noticeable that all the people mentioned by name are captains of hosts, or members of the nobility; the Iliad only records the doings of the “Achæan” heroes. One exception only is there to this rule. At one moment the host, composed no doubt of Alpines and Mediterraneans, thinks of revolting. Their leader is a mob-orator, fond of arguing as is the way with Alpines, and we can have little doubt as to the racial affinities of Thersites. If we had any, one epithet used of him would satisfy us, for his head is described as φοξὀς. The exact meaning of this term has been a matter of dispute, but it is usually rendered “tapering to a point,” and the expression φοξὁς ἔην κεφαλἠν means that he “had a sugar-loaf head.” What better description could we have of the ordinary head-form of the eastern Alpine inhabitants of the Balkan peninsula and Anatolia? If this had been the usual type of head of the “Achæan” heroes, the epithet would not have been used as distinctive of the rebellious soldier; it can only have been so used to imply how different he was in this respect from the noble “Achæan.” This seems to me to indicate, exceptionally clearly, that the Homeric heroes were long-headed.

Thus the heroes are found to be tall, fair and long-headed, and so possessing the three chief physical characteristics of the Nordic race. The resemblances between their mental characters and those of the Vikings have often been noted before and need not be repeated.[379]

It will be remembered that I have suggested that the Nordic “Achæans” were an offshoot of the body, who as Thracians and Phrygians moved eastward into Thrace and Asia Minor. I have also suggested that they came to the south down the Vardar valley. Usually they have been brought straight from Thrace, which is, of course, possible, but Ridgeway, on the other hand, brings them from Epirus, and points out that they held in veneration the Zeus of Dodona.[380] If their arrival was, as I have suggested, in small bands or by ones and twos, there is no reason to postulate that they all arrived by the same route; all that matters is that they should have come eventually from the Danube basin. As I have already mentioned, some of the Homeric heroes were Zeus-born, and may have come _via_ Epirus, while others, the majority, were of the stock of Ares. Now Ares was the god of the Thracians, or of some group of people inhabiting Thrace.[381] It would seem then that some, probably most, of the “Achæans” came from the Thraco-Phrygian stock, though whether they started on their way from Thrace, or left the main body before it had reached that country, is a matter of relatively small importance. When the archæology of Macedonia and Thrace is better understood, we shall doubtless be able to clear up this point.

It is unfortunately not possible to date these swords with precision from their associations, as there are difficulties in ascertaining the exact position in which they were found, or in identifying the potsherds and other objects found with them. They are believed to date from the third Late Minoan period, that is to say, sometime after 1400 or 1350 /B.C./ It is here that our Egyptian evidence helps us.

We learn from the Egyptian records that[382] in the fifth year of Merneptah, 1220 /B.C./, the Delta was attacked by Meryey, king of the Libyans, who brought with him a host of Tehenu, who had been living in the country behind Alexandria. He had also numerous oversea allies, pirates and traders, who came in search of loot. These were the Sherden, Shekelesh, Teresh and the Ekwesh. If the three first have been rightly identified, they were the people of Sardinia and Sicily and the Tyrsenians, who we know later as the Etruscans; whether these identifications are correct has been much disputed, but it is significant that all three represent areas or peoples which we have already identified with Prospector activities. On the fourth the Ekwesh, there is more general agreement, and I believe all authorities unite in seeing in this name the word “Achæan.” If this be so, our Nordic intruders, who had made themselves lords of the trading cities in Greece, had taken to the sea, like their fellows in the Baltic, and were, with Prospector allies, attacking and plundering the rich lands of the Delta.

It is to this expedition that I attribute the two swords already described, as indeed was suggested some years ago by Professor Peet.[383] One is unquestionably of Type D, the type which has been most commonly found in Greek lands, while the other seems, as far as can be judged from its damaged hilt, to be also of the same type. The latter is engraved with the name of Seti II., who reigned from 1209 to 1205 /B.C./, and so cannot be later than the latter date. It is probable that it was a _souvenir_ of the raid of 1220 /B.C./, upon which Seti placed his name some ten to fifteen years later.

Thus Type D was in use in 1220 /B.C./, and must have developed earlier, for we must allow some years to have elapsed since the “Achæans” left the Danube basin for Greek lands, a few more before many of them had established themselves as kings, and a further interval before they can have organised a piratical expedition on a sufficiently extensive scale to threaten the safety of Egypt. Fifteen years would be the shortest possible time for such a succession of events, thirty years more likely. So we may consider that some of these intruders left the Danube basin about 1250 /B.C./ Now it must have been about this time, or rather earlier, that the Briges, from the north of Macedonia, crossed the Hellespont into Asia Minor, where they became known as Phrygians. This movement appears to have been one of a succession of similar raids, which carried the Thraco-Phrygian people from the Danube basin eastwards. It seems probable that our “Achæan” intruders were part of this body, who, instead of moving on to the east, had passed southwards in search of adventure.

Type G, as we have seen, has been found at the famous cemetery at Hallstatt, in some of the older graves. This cemetery is believed to date, at the earliest, from 900 /B.C./, but iron was found in most of the graves, and the bronze swords were few in number, and from graves in which no iron was found. We may safely conclude that these swords belong to the very beginning of this period, and had been in use for some time previously.

It is always a difficult matter to determine how long a given type of implement or weapon remained in use. Besides this we must allow for overlapping, that is to say for the period during which a type still survived in use after its successor, which was doubtless in many ways its superior, had been designed. I am inclined to believe that about twenty-five years is sufficient to allow for this overlap, though possibly on rare occasions an obsolete weapon may have been preserved longer, especially as a trophy or memento.

If we allow a period of one hundred years between the introduction of one type and the first use of its successor, we shall be able to fit the two ascertained dates, and this period seems on the whole reasonable. Types A and B are, however, scarce in Central Europe, though Type B seems, in a modified form, to have persisted longer in the Baltic region. I propose, therefore, to reduce the hundred years to fifty in each of these cases.

Such a chronological scheme is, of necessity, provisional, and must be susceptible of modification as further synchronisms are worked out, but on the evidence at present available, I am inclined to think that it is not far from the truth, and that any amendments which may have to be made in the future will scarcely exceed fifty years either way. This scheme is for Central Europe only, and may be true also for Italy and Greece. Various modifications may, however, have to be made in applying it to more distant regions, especially in the north and west, such as Brittany, the British Isles and the Scandinavian countries.

Type A Transitional 1500-1425 Type B Semi-circular 1450-1375 Type C Oval 1400-1275 Type D Mycenæ, Fucino 1300-1175 Type E Wilburton 1200-1075 Type F Proto-Hallstatt, Dowris 1100- 975 Type G Hallstatt 1000- 875

/Chapter X/

THE IRON SWORD

We have seen that every type of sword, from Type A to Type E, has been found in the Hungarian plain, though Type B is not common there. On the other hand, Types F and G are entirely absent. It is unreasonable to suppose that, while the people of the mountain zone were developing more useful types of swords, the men of the plain were continuing for some centuries to use swords of Type E. Even were this the case we should expect to find that the swords of this type were vastly more numerous than those previously in use. But we have seen that only ten have been recorded for Hungary, whereas we have nineteen of Type D. There remain only two possibilities: either the people left the plain uninhabited, or they had found some weapon more useful than the bronze sword.

It is true, as we have seen, that steppe-lands may be deserted in times of excessive drought, and there is some reason for believing that such a dry period occurred somewhere about this time, for it was in 1350 or 1300 /B.C./ that we must place the Aramean invasion from the Arabian steppe, which was such a serious menace to Shalmaneser I.[384] But this drought, even could we be sure that it affected a small upland steppe like that of Hungary, occurred somewhat too early for our purpose. There is also the alternative theory that too heavy a rainfall in the mountain regions might have made life unpleasant.[385] But this would have left a more marked effect upon the mountain zone than on the plain. There may, indeed, have been an exodus, in fact, we shall find reason for believing that this was so, but it is unlikely that the rich Hungarian plain was left long uninhabited. There remains the alternative explanation, the discovery of a new weapon, and I hope to give reasons for believing that this is the true solution, and that the new weapon was the iron sword.

Some years ago M. Chantre investigated a large series of tombs in the basin of the Koban, just north of the Caucasus mountains. Here he found a culture, closely resembling in many details the remains found in the cemetery at Hallstatt. The earlier weapons were of bronze, but in most cases the swords, while retaining hilts of that metal, had blades of iron or steel.[386] It has been much disputed which of these two cemeteries, Hallstatt and the Koban, is the earlier, but I hope to show that the Koban graves must antedate those in Austria.

M. Chantre extended his investigations to the other side of the mountains, and on the southern slope of the Caucasus found evidence of the culture of a humble, mountain folk, with rude pots, but, what is important for our purpose, he found in these graves spear-heads and small objects of iron.[387]

Now Professor Gowland has told us that “In Western Asia there are two important districts where iron ores are of very extensive occurrence, and in which remains of early iron manufacture are found.” He adds, “from a metallurgical point of view, deduced from the extent and character of the ancient remains, there are strong reasons for believing that the first-mentioned region was the first in which the metal was regularly produced.” This first-mentioned region he describes as “on the south-east of the Euxine (ancient Paphlagonia and Pontus) extending from the modern Yeshil Irmak to Batum, and comprising a series of mountain ranges, not far from the coast, along the lower slopes and foot hills of which the iron deposits are scattered.”[388] The graves with the iron spear-heads described by Chantre are just at the north-eastern end of this region, while in the south-western lived later the Chalybes, who were renowned workers in iron in the sixth century.[389]

Chantre has shown that the two cultures which he described were existing at the same time, for the graves of one people sometimes contained objects belonging to the culture of the other;[390] not only, then, did the cultures synchronise, but the peoples had come into contact. There is no reason for believing that the Koban folk, militarist though they were, had conquered their humble neighbours. That the reverse had taken place is unthinkable. The evidence suggests that the contact had been peaceful, that trade relations had been established, and perhaps the Koban folk, who appear to have been new-comers in this region, may have taken wives from their neighbours. All this points to the fact that it was in the Koban region that the steppe-folk first learned the use of iron, and that they carried the knowledge of it thence to the Danube basin, rather than that the reverse process took place.

But, it may be asked, how can we be sure that our Koban people are the steppe-folk, who have been the heroes of the last few chapters? Their culture closely resembles that of Hallstatt, which is but a development of the later bronze age culture of Central Europe, and even their earlier graves clearly belong to the same series. This is so obvious that Rostovtzeff is content merely to state that they had come from the west.[391]

It may be well, however, to submit more precise proofs of this origin. During the later bronze age a certain type of pin had been used in Hungary, possibly, as some think, as a hair-pin, but used more probably, as Lissauer has suggested, to fasten the _chlamys_, _toga_ or plaid, which these steppe-folk appear to have worn. These pins are known to the Germans as _Rudernadln_[392] and to the French as _épingles à raquette_.[393] Lissauer recognises five types, which we will distinguish by the letter A to E. A developes into B, and this again into alternative forms, C and E. A also developes by stages, which are at present missing, into D.

Now Types A and B have been found in North Italy, Switzerland, Wurtemberg and on the Rhine. They have also been found in Hungary, at Tökés, Gata, Versecz and Butta. Two have been found in Bohemia, at Noutonic and Krendorf, and one at Gaya in Moravia. Thus these two types are fairly well distributed over both halves of the Celtic cradle. Type D has been found at Andrasfalva in Hungary, and at Alt-Bydzow in Bohemia. Besides these several have been found further afield, one at Dexheim in Rhenish Hesse, one at Greisheim in Hesse-Darmstadt and one at Fritzen in East Prussia. Lastly several have been found in the Koban graves,[394] and these are larger and more developed than the others.

This evidence seems to show us that this type of pin was at first well distributed throughout the Celtic cradle, and that the dimensions of the head increased in Hungary and Bohemia. About the time that this later form was in use some kind of exodus took place to various distant places. That one of these expeditions passed to the east, in the direction of south Russia, is clear from the occurrence of this type, in its most developed form, in the Koban graveyards. We can well believe that these emigrants left the Celtic cradle by the Moravian gate, and passed along the more or less open spaces at the northern foot of the Carpathians, to which reference has already been made, and so into the plain of Russia and finally to the foot of the Caucasus. The journey would have been made on horseback, and need not have occupied many weeks so there is no need to expect much evidence from objects lost _en route_; but, as they must have crossed Podolia on their way to the Koban, it seems probable that it was these emigrants who left at Zavadyntse the sword which was mentioned in a previous chapter, as this is the only example of a Central European sword recorded from the eastern plain. The Podolian sword was of Type E, and this gives us a clue to the date, and will enable us to put together in their proper order these various items of evidence.

The evidence which I have cited in the foregoing pages can best be explained by believing that about 1150 /B.C./ some of the steppe-folk from the Hungarian plain departed, probably through the Moravian gate, to seek fresh pastures. While some may have gone northwards, the majority passed along the open sandy heaths of Galicia, across Podolia, where a sword was lost at Zavadyntse, and so on to the grassy plains by the banks of the Koban river. Here they settled for a time, and during their wanderings some came into contact with the humble iron-using people on the southern slopes of the Caucasus. Whether they approached these people to trade or to acquire some commodity in which they themselves were lacking, or whether they sought them to obtain their daughters for wives, we know not; all we can be sure is that some intercourse took place. It seems clear, too, that it was from their humble neighbours that the Koban-folk learned of the existence of iron or steel, and how to work that metal. It was not small knives they needed, but better blades for their trusty swords. Thus, I believe, the use of iron was first learned by the peoples of Europe.

This discovery must have been made by 1100 /B.C./ at the latest probably some years earlier. The Koban-folk realised that steel blades were far superior to those of bronze, and doubtless were anxious to show off their new acquisition before the old folks at home. They may, too, have remembered that the stone from which their neighbours extracted the metal was plentiful in some parts of the old country. Whatever the cause, I believe that some of them returned to Hungary with their new discovery, before bronze swords of Type F had been evolved or at any rate had come into general use.

Iron ore, which could easily be worked by primitive methods, occurs in Transylvania, at Gyalar,[395] and it seems likely that it was in this neighbourhood that they first settled. It is also possible that about this time some of them occupied Thrace, for in early days Thracian swords had a great reputation.[396] By degrees they pushed up the Danube, at any rate as far as its junction with the Save. Before 1000 /B.C./ a large number of them advanced up the Morava and down the Vardar and soon afterwards entered Thessaly, whence they started on that series of conquests known as the return of the Heraclids, or the Dorian invasion of Greece.[397]

Many of these Koban-folk settled on the southern bank of the Danube and the Save, and in the hill country behind; various cemeteries of this time have been discovered in this region, the most famous of which is that at Glasinatz in Bosnia.[398] Others pushed up the Save, which runs through mountains of an easily worked iron ore; evidence of early workings have been found on the banks of the Mur in Styria and on the upper Drave in Carinthia.[399]

A little later, between 1000 and 900 /B.C./, some of these people passed over into Italy. They may have crossed the Adriatic, as did in all probability the men of the leaf-shaped sword, but it is tempting to think that they crossed the Predil pass and settled at Santa Lucia Tolmino, near the head waters of the Isonzo. Here a cemetery was found in 1885,[400] much of the grave furniture from which is, or was in 1914 in the Trieste Museum, while the remainder is in Vienna. More than 1000 graves were found and the cemetery must have been in existence for several centuries; but it is usually believed that the earliest graves date only from the eighth century. Others of the same party crossed the mountains into the rich Friuli plain and settled at Dernazacco, near Cividale,[401] and gradually spread thence over the Veneto.

We come across further evidence of their advance at Este,[402] and as they crossed the Po valley they destroyed the _terremare_, which had existed there since early in the bronze age and dispersed their inhabitants.[403] There is evidence that about this time some of the _terramara_-folk arrived in Etruria,[404] others are found settling in the neighbourhood of Taranto,[405] while Dr. Hooton has shown that there are strong reasons for believing that the earliest settlement on the Palatine Hill at Rome was due to these people.[406] The invaders seem to have occupied all the plain of Italy north-east of the Apeninnes, the area known later as Ombrice[407] or Etruria Circumpadana,[408] but the most important spots at which their remains have been found are in and around Bologna. From one of the best-known sites in that city their culture has been called that of Villanova.[409] That at one time they conquered Etruria has been suggested in chapter /IV./, and doubtless it was they who extended the Etruscan rule from the Alps to the south of Naples; but, as has already been explained, it would be a mistake to confuse them with the real Etruscans.

We have seen that in the mountain zone the pile-dwelling civilisation continued throughout the bronze age. This type of culture, introduced by the early Alpines from Asia Minor, was adopted in Central Europe by the Nordic intruders, who had made themselves lords over the Alpine peasants. That they were still retaining their race exclusiveness is clear from the fact that long and broad-headed skulls are still found side by side.[410] In the plain, however, where we have no evidence of Alpine settlement, all signs of pile-dwellings are absent.

It is a striking fact that with the arrival of iron swords into the mountain zone this pile-dwelling culture, which had existed from early neolithic days till the close of the bronze age, came suddenly to an end. This cannot be merely an accident, for the same thing occurred all over Central Europe.[411] It is also significant that some centuries later it was revived.[412] Some important revolution must have taken place to end so abruptly a custom which had lasted for thousands of years, and to end it with equal suddenness in all parts of the mountain zone. I can only account for it in one way, by supposing that the men of the plain, who had never occupied this type of dwelling, had swept over the mountain zone, carrying fire and the iron sword throughout the villages of their neighbours.

This I am inclined to think must have been the case, and such an invasion would account for the widespread exodus of people with the Type G swords, which we have found scattered over many areas in France, over parts of North Germany, and stretching even to Scandinavia and Finland, and which reached the British Isles, with much other culture belonging to the Swiss lake-dwellings, as Crawford has recently shown us.[413] These people with the Type G swords must have been refugees from the invasion of the iron sword people. Déchelette has given us a map showing their progress in France, and on the same map he indicates the progress of the iron sword men.[414] The latter followed the refugees in almost every direction, and it was only in the Seine valley that the exiles escaped pursuit. This is a point to which I shall have to refer in a later chapter.

/Chapter XI/

A RECAPITULATION

We are now in a position to interpret the meaning of the evolution and distribution of these leaf-shaped swords, though there are many details, which we would gladly know, but of which we must remain in ignorance, perhaps for ever. We can, however, form some general idea of the events which were taking place in Europe during the centuries under review, and it will, perhaps, make for lucidity if they are here recapitulated as a continuous story.

Since 4000 /B.C./ some Alpine people, coming originally from Asia Minor, had occupied the mountain zone, where they had erected their pile-dwellings and had cultivated their strips of cornlands. Meanwhile on the Russian steppes, east of the Dnieper, Nordic steppe-folk mounted on horses, were driving cattle from one pasture to another, sometimes dwelling in the open steppe, at others pasturing their beasts in the park-lands and woods to the north. Between these two peoples were the Tripolje-folk, living in pit-dwellings, cultivating the soil, and later on importing copper axes from Ægean traders.

About 3000 /B.C./, or perhaps rather earlier, a drought caused some of the steppe-folk to emigrate. It was perhaps at this time, though probably later, that some passed through the woodland to the middle Volga valley, where, mixing with communities of Mongoloid fishers, they developed the Fationovo culture and became ancestors of the red Finns.[415] Others in small numbers certainly advanced towards the Baltic, and passing along its southern shore, appeared later at Furfooz, in Belgium.[416] The majority of these moved slowly up the Rhine valley, whence some entered Switzerland from the north, and made themselves lords of the lake-dwelling villages. Other steppe-folk seem also to have entered Hungary, probably through the Moravian gate, and settled on the plain and the eastern foothills of the mountain zone.

Meanwhile the knowledge of copper had been introduced by traders, who had sailed up the Adriatic, and travelled inland from Fiume. This copper culture reached the Swiss lake-dwellings, and eventually passed down the Rhone as far as Lyons. It was followed by a bronze culture, which was imported from Italy and the western Mediterranean.

About 2250 /B.C./ another drought caused a dispersal of the steppe-folk on a greater scale. Some went east, into the remotest fastnesses of Turkestan, some perhaps as far as the head waters of the Yenesei and the region around Minutsinsk, while others passed on to the Iranian plateau. This last group we hear of about 2100 /B.C./ as Kassites, and a few centuries later they conquered Mesopotamia.

Those who went westward seem to have destroyed the Tripolje culture and driven off its people, unless, indeed, they had already been driven away by the drought. The bands of steppe-folk divided, some passing north of the Carpathians and some going south by the shores of the Euxine. This last group crossed the Danube, and skirting the Balkan mountains arrived at the east end of Thrace. Here they divided, one band passing to the west by the shores of the Ægean and then southwards to Thessaly, where they frightened the inhabitants, who termed them Centaurs. The other band crossed the Hellespont, destroyed Hissarlik II., and passed on into the Anatolian plain, where in due course they organised the native Alpine population into the Hittite empire.

It is not so easy to follow the group which passed north of the Carpathians, but they seem to have followed the line of sandy heaths across Galicia into Silesia, then some, probably, entered Hungary through the Moravian gate, while others pushed into Bohemia. These last found there people who were either refugees from the Tripolje area or folk closely allied to them. These people, who had been accustomed to a type of cord vase, had found in Bohemia bell-beakers, which had arrived there via Italy from Spain. From a combination of both types of ware they had evolved the northern beaker. When the Nordic steppe-folk arrived from Silesia these Beaker-folk left, and passed northwards between the Rhine and the Weser, some going to Jutland and some to Holland. A few of the latter found a refuge in Great Britain.

In Central Europe, in the district we have called the Celtic cradle, we find two cultures growing up, one consisting of Alpine peasants under Nordic lords, which prevailed in the mountain zone; the other, more truly Nordic, and still pastoral and perhaps nomadic, was limited to the Hungarian plain. After a short interval of interruption, trading was resumed with their Italian neighbours by way of Fiume.

It is about this time that the Nordic steppe-folk of Hungary demanded larger and larger daggers, until at length the earliest leaf-shaped sword was evolved about 1500 /B.C./ During the following years a few adventurers passed into the Friuli and the Venetian lands, perhaps to trade, or perhaps to settle. Others, few in number, seem to have visited the amber coast of the Baltic, and one, at least, died there and was buried in Schleswig-Holstein. About 1450 /B.C./ Type B was evolved and spread over the mountain zone. It was carried by traders or invaders towards the Baltic, especially to Denmark. Since this type is found in considerable numbers in the north, and there continued its own local development for many years, we must admit that these swords were not taken there by mere adventurers, but by invaders, few in number, perhaps, who had gone north to Denmark, and perhaps further still, and settled, perhaps as a governing class, among the people they found there.

From 1400 to 1300 /B.C./, while Type C was dominant, there appears to have been little movement. The exodus of fifty years earlier had perhaps given ample elbow room to those who were left behind. But soon after 1300 /B.C./ we find two movements, more or less simultaneous, but going in opposite directions.

The first of these movements seems to have started from the valley of the Save, perhaps over the Predil pass into the Friuli, but more probably, as Peet[417] has suggested, through Bosnia and Herzegovina, and across the Adriatic into Italy. If the latter course were taken, the invaders landed not far from Ascoli Piceno, and most of them passed up the valley of the Trento, by the pass through which the Via Salaria afterwards ran, to the valley of the Velino. Here they settled in that fold of the Apennines between lakes Trasimene and Fucino, through which run, in opposite directions, the Velino and the upper waters of the Tiber. This band of invaders must have been a relatively small one, as the area they occupied is not extensive and was very sharply defined.

The other movement went to the east, and was probably that great emigration from Europe to Asia of which dim recollections survived among the Greeks, and which took the Briges into Asia Minor, where they became Phrygians.[418] It also carried to Thrace some, at any rate, of its red-haired people.[419] It was probably some stragglers from this group who passed southwards, like knight-errants destroying monsters and punishing evil doers, and who eventually became kings over the towns of Mycenean Greece. These were known later as Achæans, and may possibly have included also stragglers from the group which had passed over to Italy.

It was between 1200 and 1175 /B.C./ that the next movement began, and this was mainly to the west and north. Some of these invaders left the Danube basin, crossed the Rhine, and passing through the Belfort gap, entered France, and over-ran the greater part of that country. Until the swords of this type have been catalogued and mapped, it will be impossible to trace their line of advance, or to determine how far they went. Some of these seem to have passed either down the Rhine or up the east of France, for they crossed over to Britain, landing for the most part in the Thames and by the Wash, or else at some intermediate points. They seem to have settled in the east of England, and subsequently in Wessex, but later waves of them evidently set out for Ireland, crossing Wales by the upper Severn valley and the Bala cleft. A considerable number of these seem to have settled in Ireland.

It was about this time that others set out from Hungary through the Moravian gate, and while some went northwards, the majority passed along Galicia, across the Bukovina and Podolia, and arrived at length by the banks of the Koban. Here they settled for a time, and entered into trade relations with a humble tribe, living on the southern slopes of the Caucasus, from whom they learned the knowledge of iron. Armed with swords with iron blades, they returned to the Danube basin about 1100 /B.C./, and perhaps worked the iron mines at Gyalar, in Transylvania. Then they settled in the Hungarian plain and in the north of the Balkan peninsula. About 1050 /B.C./ a large body of these people from the Koban passed southwards and descended the Vardar valley. By degrees they passed thence to Thessaly. Then they began that slow but steady conquest of the Greek states, which is known as the Dorian invasion.

A little later, about 1000 /B.C./, the Koban folk, with their iron swords, began pushing up the Danube, the Drave and the Save. In the valley of the last they found whole mountains of iron, which they began to work, and by 900 /B.C./, if not earlier, they had reached Styria and the Salzkammergut, and were working the salt mines at Hallstatt. It was, perhaps, earlier than this that they moved up the Danube valley as far as Ulm and Sigmaringen, and soon after their arrival there quarrels arose between them and the lords of the mountain zone. It must have been before 900 /B.C./ that the newcomers destroyed the lake-dwellings and expelled their inhabitants, who fled from them to the north and west.

The refugees who went northwards were few in number, though some of them seem to have fled a long way, perhaps even to Finland. Large numbers escaped to France, and spread over most of that land except Brittany and the extreme west. But here they were followed by the men of the iron sword, who pursued them in every direction, except down the valley of the Seine.

A great number of these refugees reached Britain, landing mostly at the mouth of the Thames, and sailing up it as far as Reading. An important settlement was made at “Old England,” at the mouth of the Brent, and doubtless elsewhere by the Thames. They advanced across the south of England, where, as we have seen, some of their predecessors were living, and settled at All Cannings and doubtless other places in Wiltshire. They pushed on into South Wales, making settlements on the open hills above Cardiff. Some of these, too, reached Ireland.

Meanwhile the men of the iron sword, pursuing these refugees, followed them in every direction across France, except down the valley of the Seine. They went northwards down the valleys of the Meuse and Moselle, entered Belgium,[420] and perhaps even entered Denmark. There seems no evidence, however, that they crossed to Britain.

One further raid was made by the men of the iron sword, and this was on an extensive scale. Some time after 900 /B.C./ a number of them, coming from the Save valley, crossed the Predil pass. Some of these stayed for a time at Santa Lucia Tolmino, in the Isonzo valley, while the majority proceeded to Cividale in the Friuli plain. They passed on rapidly to the Po valley, and destroyed the villages of the Terramara-folk who lived there, expelling the inhabitants as seems to have been the invariable custom of these men of blood and iron.[421] The Terramara-folk fled, some to Etruria, others to Taranto and others again to Rome, where they built a dry terramara on the Palatine Hill.[422] The iron sword people passed on and settled at the foot of the Apennines, with their centre at Bologna, introducing into all the region north-east of the mountains the culture known to archæologists as that of Villa-nova.[423]

As we have seen in Chapter IV., the Etruscans had been for some little time settled in Tuscany, where they had established their trading cities governed by religious magistrates. Before long these Etruscan Prospectors found themselves face to face with this newly-arrived war-like people. I have already given my reasons for thinking that the Villa-nova folk conquered the Etruscans, and that together they extended their empire, which is said to have reached to Pompeii. They perhaps succeeded in pressing back the leaf-shaped sword people from the neighbourhood of Lake Trasimene, but did not apparently succeed at first in dislodging them from the valley of the Velino.

Thus we see that the leaf-shaped sword folk, mainly the people of the mountain zone, have at one time or another invaded and in some way or another conquered nearly all Europe except the Iberian peninsula, while at the close of the bronze age they arrived as refugees in Celtic lands. The iron sword folk, the people of the plain, who had learned the use of iron in the Koban, followed them, making a complete conquest of Greece, of Italy north of the Apennines, of France all but the west and the Seine valley, Belgium and perhaps other regions further north. These people did not conquer Scandinavia, nor did they reach Britain, at any rate until several more centuries had elapsed.

/Chapter XII/

THE ARYAN CRADLE

During the middle half of the nineteenth century the minds of many European savants were focussed upon what was termed the Aryan hypothesis, which was investigated with more enthusiasm than discretion by comparative philologists in England and France, and with still greater vigour in Germany. Since then the general conclusions of these mid-nineteenth century speculations have been current among politicians and journalists, who talk glibly about Teutons and Celts and Slavs, and that medley of races and peoples, who still continue to use in a modified form the speech imposed upon them by their Roman conquerors, and are therefore called the Latin race. Such terms, meaningless though they are as applied to nations, have become popular during the last half century, with disastrous results, since they have been used to emphasise certain divisions which were growing up among European peoples, and which in their turn did much to give rise to the European war, and are still retarding the Peace for which everyone is longing.

The idea was first put forward in 1786, when Sir William Jones,[424] in a communication to the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, pointed out the similarities between the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, German and Celtic languages, but little progress was made until in 1833-5 Bopp[425] published his comparative grammar. For the next fifty years the hypothesis grew at a great pace. The world was anxious for a scientific classification of its peoples, especially of the peoples of Europe. Men were also enquiring what had happened in this continent before early Greek legend and literature began to lift the veil. The sciences of anthropology and prehistoric archæology were in their infancy, and unable to provide answers to these questions, and the comparative philologists, from the evidence of language alone, were prepared to give full and most detailed explanations.

Thus arose the Aryan hypothesis, forced upon an eagerly inquiring public with great enthusiasm and complete, or almost complete, agreement. But during the eighties rifts appeared to disturb this harmony, anthropology and archæology began to claim a hearing, and to disagree with the conclusions of philology. By 1890 the philological enthusiasm died out, at least in this country and in France, though for a time it lingered on in Germany. All those acquainted with the subject felt that the question needed reconsideration, partly in the light of more accurate philological study, and especially having regard to the newer evidence being produced in such quantities by the sciences of anthropology and prehistoric archæology. The general public, however, continued to talk and to write, with more confidence than before, of Teutons, Celts, Slavs and the Latin races.

A word as to the term Aryan. When it was found that Sanskrit was allied to most of the European languages, it was felt that a term was needed to describe the group. Bopp, thinking that the German or Teutonic group was the most westerly, as the Indian dialects were the most easterly, used the term Indo-Germanic, which had previously been suggested by Klaproth in 1823.[426] But when it was fully realised that the Celtic tongues were also included in the group, French and Italian scholars, who felt that the term German was receiving too much prominence, suggested the name Indo-European. Neither of these terms is quite accurate and both are clumsy, so to avoid the latter defect Professor Max-Müller suggested the term Aryan. This, too, is misleading, for the Aryas were the noble caste among the Vedic Indians and the early Persians. The name, however, is convenient, and is still used by many people, especially in this country. Recently Dr. Giles[427] has suggested for the original people who spoke these tongues the name of _Wiros_, as words similar to this, meaning _men_, occur in most of these languages. The term has much to recommend it, and it will be used in the following pages for the first users of this speech.

When the connection between these languages was first realised, it was felt that all the tongues had been derived from a primitive mother speech, and that this primitive speech must have been spoken originally by a small group of people, the primitive Aryans, or, as we shall call them, the Wiros. But owing to loose thinking all the people who speak these languages to-day, as well as those who have spoken them in the past, were considered Aryans, and it was assumed that because their languages were related they were racially identical. As long as this applied only to European peoples no one raised any protest, but when Max-Müller asserted that the same blood runs in the veins of English soldiers as in the veins of the darkest Bengalese,[428] the Nordic spirit in this country, which, as we have seen, is prone to race exclusiveness, rose in its wrath, and the whole generalisation was questioned.

It was then shown that languages could be imposed by conquerors upon their subjects, and that there were instances on record of the reverse process taking place, as in the case of the Frankish invaders of Gaul and the Viking settlers in Normandy. People then, with equal lack of lucid thinking, ran to the opposite extreme and said, “there is now no Aryan race, and there never has been one.” To Penka[429] is due the credit of making the matter clear. He pointed out that Aryan blood is not co-extensive with Aryan speech. He showed that those who use the latter are of several distinct anthropological types, but he argued that the primitive Aryans or Wiros must have been of one type.

Penka’s contention seems eminently reasonable and, one would think, incontrovertible, for a group of languages, so closely resembling one another, must have grown up in a somewhat restricted area, among a people who had, during the formative period of the language, little intercourse with the outside world. The very conditions which would produce a specialised type of language, would, we may feel sure, have produced an equally specialised type of men, that is to say, a race in the anthropological meaning of the term.

The failure of Penka’s views to carry widespread conviction was, I am inclined to think, due to the fact that his theory involved the identification of the primitive Wiros with the Nordic race. There is really no valid objection to this view, and, as will be seen later, the evidence which I am adducing points to a similar conclusion. But, unfortunately, this theory became associated with certain political opinions, and so became distasteful to those with a different outlook.

The original supporters of the Aryan hypothesis fell so in love with the languages and with the people who originally developed them, that they grew to believe that these Wiros were superior creatures, with a superior tongue, which they had imposed upon an inferior world. All good things found in the civilisation of Europe were attributed to them, and they became the super-men. As far as we can ascertain from the linguistic evidence available they had, it is true, evolved a language which, owing to its flexibility, was capable of great things, but it is by no means clear that the higher developments, which some of the tongues have reached, would have been attained had not the Wiros mixed with people possessing other ideas and other idioms. The evidence of linguistic palæontology shows that in material culture they were very backward, and, as we shall see later on, all the archæological evidence tends to show that in these respects they were far behind the peoples whom they conquered, and on whom they imposed their tongue. Their one important characteristic seems to have been their incapacity for learning other languages, and so insisting that other folk should adopt theirs. This may have been due to lack of linguistic ability, or to an overbearing conceit. Probably it was due to both. The original Wiros, then, as judged by linguistic evidence, were far from being super-men.

Another fallacy has been the belief that the Nordic is the superior person, the “white man” _par excellence_. The Nordic is strong, robust and courageous, and possesses certain manly qualities which are much admired; also he has taken care for some thousands of years to impress upon his neighbours that these are admirable qualities. The Nordic has also other good points, such as honesty and a genius for administration, but he is far from possessing a monopoly of the virtues, and in many respects falls behind members of the other European races. The works of Gobineau[430] and later of Madison Grant[431] have enumerated his virtues without defining his limitations, and no one, so far as I know, has yet written to extol the excellencies of the Alpine or Mediterranean races, who have contributed and still contribute much of what is good in the make-up of modern Europe.

During the latter part of the nineteenth century the Germans were engaged in making and consolidating their empire, and to do this they wished to encourage their nationals to believe that Germans, _qua_ Germans, were the inheritors of many, in fact of most admirable qualities. As a matter of fact such “patriotic” ideas were current in most countries, as can be seen by an examination of the school text-books, especially history books, in use at that time, and sometimes, too, at the present day. Only in this, as is their wont, the Germans were very thorough, and they pressed every science and every hypothesis into their service.

What was read into the hypothesis of Penka, though it does not follow that he wished it, was that these Wiros or Aryan super-men were the same as the Nordic super-men, and that their home was in Germany, as could easily be proved from the pages of Tacitus. It was implied that from Germany had come all that was Aryan or Nordic or really valuable in the population of other countries, and that, therefore, the Aryan Nordic Germans were the salt of the earth. This view, which grew up insensibly from the hypothesis of Penka and others, was caught hold of by those who were wishing to transform the peaceful Alpine German into an aggressive militarist, and in its full absurdity was given to the world by a renegade Englishman, Herr Houston Chamberlain.[432]

Now, as we have seen, the original Wiros, though they had their good points, had by no means a monopoly of the virtues, and were enabled to spread their tongues largely by their incapacity and unwillingness to learn the speech of others. The Nordic is a picturesque and romantic figure, with many admirable qualities, but is seldom clever, skilful with his hands or patient in research. Lastly, an examination of the physical types, as they exist to-day in Germany, shows us that outside the former kingdom of Hanover, the Nordic type is rare.[433] There are probably as many pure Nordics in France, distributed over the northern departments from Dunkirk almost to the west of Brittany, as will be found in the German empire. There is this difference only between the populations of the two countries. In Germany the fair colouring of the Nordic element seems to be a dominant character over the relatively dark pigmentation of the Alpine; so we meet with a majority of people having broad Alpine heads but fair Nordic colouration. In France, on the other hand, there is a large Mediterranean element, surviving from neolithic days, and the brunette colouring of this race is more dominant than the blondness of the Nordic. As all three types have mingled in France, fair hair is less frequently found among those with broad heads.

The use made of the Aryan Nordic equation by German political propagandists has inclined, French and, to some extent, English writers, to reject this view. This objection has been in a large measure due to misunderstandings, and in any case it is unscientific to allow national and political prejudices to influence our opinions on such questions.

If, then, we agree with Penka that there must have been an original Aryan race, or, as we shall call them, Wiros, it is important to ascertain what part of the world it was, from which these languages spread to Ireland and Bengal. This is the problem of the Aryan cradle.

In the early days of the hypothesis students noted that Sanskrit was the most archaic of the languages, and forgetting that the Vedic hymns were composed 1000 or 1500 /B.C./, while the earliest Greek literature dated from 800 or 900 /B.C./, there was a tendency to derive the whole group from North India.[434] Subsequently, when the close connection between Sanskrit and Zend, the ancient Persian tongue, was recognised, and it was realised that the Vedic folk were recent arrivals in the Punjab when the Vedic hymns were being composed, the Aryan cradle was removed to the region watered by the Oxus and the Jaxartes, and the slopes of the Hindu Kush.[435]

Here the cradle remained for a long time. Pott, hypnotised by his aphorism _ex oriente lux_, drew a wonderful picture of the westward advance of the Wiros from their eastern home. Others filled in, largely from their own imaginations, the remaining details. And so we get the mid-nineteenth century view of these Aryan super-men, with a language containing potentialities of all that is fine in literature, with a social organisation and morality which was to reform benighted Europe, worshipping deities which were the products either of solar or chthonic myths or of diseases of language, setting forth from the western slopes of the Himalayan _massif_, urged on “by an irresistible impulse” towards the setting sun, migrating westward and ever westward, carrying their wives and families in the famous Aryan cart provided for them by a distinguished anthropologist.[436] Such was the view unanimously held by all Europe, and which figures still in too many text-books. One man only was left crying in the wilderness, or at least in the steppe, and he was an Englishman. As Hehn[437] wrote in 1874, “so it came to pass that in England, the native land of fads, there chanced to enter into the head of an eccentric individual the notion of placing the cradle of the Aryan race in Europe.”

Those of us who live “in that land of fads” may well be proud of Dr. Latham, who advanced these views in 1851, and subsequently enlarged upon them.[438] In due course nearly all other philologists followed suit, and Max-Müller alone was unrepentent, and as late as 1887 wrote “I should still say, as I said forty years ago, ‘Somewhere in Asia,’ and no more.”[439] But by then the Asiatic cradle had gone to the limbo of exploded hypotheses.

In 1868 Benfey, in a preface to Fick’s work,[440] acknowledged the value of Latham’s protests, and, arguing for the first time from the type of evidence known as linguistic palæontology, advocated a European as distinguished from an Asiatic cradle, and suggested, as Latham had done earlier, the region north of the Black Sea. He was followed in 1871 by Geiger,[441] who with national pride wished to prove that the super-man had always lived in the plain of North Germany, to which, some years later, Piètrement[442] retorted by suggesting that Geiger’s arguments would apply equally well to the neighbourhood of Lake Balkash and the Ala-tau mountains.

In the same year in which Geiger’s work appeared Cuno made a notable contribution to the hypothesis.[443] He contended that the original undivided Wiros were not a small clan, but must have been a numerous, nomad pastoral people, inhabiting an extensive steppe region. For the evolution of the parent tongue with its elaborate grammar a long period, several thousands of years, must have been needed, and during this time the Wiros must have moved freely over the area of the cradle, having frequent intercourse with one another, but little or none with outsiders. These conditions, he thought, could only be obtained on a vast plain, undivided by lofty mountain barriers or impassable forests; this cradle must have been in a temperate climate, tolerably uniform in character, where there would have been ample room for the growth of a numerous people. Such an area can only be found in the great plain of Northern Europe, stretching from the north of France to the Ural mountains.

Further investigation has shown that much of this plain was filled with dense forests and impassable morasses, but that the open steppe begins in Russia, and extends uninterruptedly to the slopes of the Hindu Kush, with certain westward prolongations, especially the sandy heaths to the north of the Carpathians, stretching from the Russian steppe, across Galicia, to the neighbourhood of Breslau. North of this, too, is a belt of parkland, opening on to the steppe, where nomad herdsmen could drive their cattle when the grass of the steppe became burnt up. Here, it would seem, was an area which would meet the needs of the linguistic palæontologist, and it was in this region that the Aryan cradle was placed by Dr. Schrader in 1883,[444] and here it has remained without opposition until quite recently.

During the last few months there has appeared the first volume of the Cambridge History of India, to which Dr. Peter Giles had contributed a chapter on the Aryans.[445] In this, in which he has repeated his suggestion that these people should in future be called Wiros, he has put forward views which differ in material respects from those hitherto held. His suggestion is, in fact, that the Aryan cradle is to be sought for in the plain of Hungary.

In contradistinction to views previously advanced, he believes that the original Wiros were settled agriculturists and not nomad herdsmen.[446] He bases this conclusion, apparently, on the fact that they knew of corn. A careful study of all the evidence on this subject collected by Schrader[447] convinces me, however, that it is far from certain that the undivided Wiros were acquainted with cultivated grain, for the terms used, few if any of which run through all the languages, may well apply to wild grain, and oats grow wild on the Russian steppe,[448] and may well have been used as food for man and beast. Moreover it is not an unknown thing for nomad people to grow scratch crops of grain. Such crops of barley I have myself seen grown by nomad Bedawin in the clay deserts behind Alexandria. The steppe-folk, too, like most nomads, were probably in the habit of making occasional raids on the settled lands on their margin, and we have actual evidence that this occurred. We know also that settled cultivators were living both at Tripolje and at Anau on the edge of the steppe. The original Wiro word for grain might well be the name they used for this kind of booty, nor need we exclude the possibility that when times were hard they acquired grain by trade from their settled neighbours, as Abraham, a nomad steppe-man, purchased corn from Egypt. The argument from the words for grain seems indecisive, and the balance of the evidence cited by Schrader seems in favour of a nomad existence.

Dr. Giles feels that “the close similarity between the various languages spoken by them would lead us to infer that they must have lived for long in a severely circumscribed area, so that their peculiarities developed for many generations in common.”[449] This, as we have seen, was Cuno’s idea, and is an eminently sound conclusion. But Dr. Giles would see in this circumscribed area one surrounded with a ring of mountains, while Cuno thought that it demanded an extensive steppe. The difference between the two views seems to depend upon whether the Wiros were nomad or settled, and I have already given reasons for believing them to have been nomads.

Dr. Giles objects to the steppe-cradle. He gives as his reason that this region has not on the whole the characteristics required by the conclusions drawn from linguistic palæontology;[450] on the other hand Schrader, who has studied this side of philology more exhaustively than most inquirers, believes that the conditions are fulfilled.[451] Neither argument is perhaps conclusive, and both deserve serious attention; the decision must rest upon evidence drawn from those other sciences which deal with the far past.

We have found reason for believing that in neolithic days the Russian steppe east of the Dnieper was inhabited by a nomad steppe-folk, who had domesticated horses and cattle, and perhaps sheep. As they lived on a plain they had probably not met with the goat, which is a mountain beast, and it is to be noted that the name for goat varies in nearly all the Wiro languages.[452] These nomad steppe-folk, who buried their dead in a contracted position covered with red ochre under kurgans or barrows, were, we believe, Nordic or proto-Nordic in type, and some, at least, of their skeletons remind us of the Brünn-Brux-Combe Capelle type,[453] who hunted horses in late Aurignacian and Solutrean times.

The state of civilisation and the area of distribution of those nomad steppe-folk exactly corresponds with the requirements of the early Wiros as postulated by Schrader, though it differs in some respects from those demanded by Giles. On the other hand, in Magdalenian and Azilian times, and perhaps during the earlier phases of the neolithic age, the ancestors of these people may well have lived in the Hungarian plain, and we have seen how some of them survived in Switzerland, at Chamblandes, well into neolithic times.[454]

It is possible, then, that the circumscribed area, though not the settled agricultural condition, demanded by Dr. Giles, may have been true in the later phases of the upper palæolithic age. This, however, he will not agree to, for he is persuaded that the _hiatus_, assumed by the earlier archæologists, still exists, and that the upper palæolithic age, as well as the lower, preceded the last ice age and belongs to a very remote past.

Some archæologists, it is true, still hold to these views, and this inflated chronology has not yet been abandoned by all. During the last few years, however, the shorter dating[455] has become more generally accepted, and this brings the whole of the neanthropic period into relatively recent times, and gives us a continuous history from the Aurignacian period to the present day. If Dr. Giles could be persuaded to accept these more modern views on palæolithic chronology, many of his difficulties would be removed, and he might agree to place the Hungarian cradle of the Wiros in the latter part of the upper palæolithic age.

Dr. Giles raises objections also to the continuity of the Russio-Turkestan steppe, and maintains that a connection between South Russia and the east, north of the Black Sea, would have been impossible.[456] He is, therefore, disposed to take the Wiros to Persia and India by way of Asia Minor.

The great objection which he cites to the northern passage is the existence of the barren Ust Urt desert. Also the fact that the Caspian has steadily been becoming more shallow and contracting in area. These two points, if true, to some extent contradict one another. It is true, doubtless, that at one time the Caspian had covered a greatly extended area, but it is not so clear that its contraction has been a steady progress. We have already seen, from the evidence cited by Ellsworth Huntington,[457] that this contraction and expansion has probably been intermittent. In any case, the contraction has been due to light rainfall, and it is this light rainfall which has produced the desert condition of the Ust Urt. When the Caspian expanded, it was because of increased precipitation, when such parts of the Ust Urt as were not inundated would have been a grassy steppe.

Dr. Giles suggests that at one time the Caspian and Aral seas were one great inland sea, and that such was at one time the case is implied by extracts from the writings of Herodotus.[458] But though this was almost certainly the case during periods of relatively heavy rainfall, the level would have to have risen well above the 200 metre contour to have obstructed the passage between the Russian and Turkestan steppes. Such a rise is quite unthinkable during the last 6000 years, for had the surface been raised 220 feet above the present sea level the Caspio-Aral Sea would have been connected with the Euxine.[459] Even had the impossible occurred and the 200 metre contour been reached it would have been quite easy to pass from one steppe area to another, by crossing the southern slopes of the Urals, which are raised very little above the plain and would form no obstacle to nomad tribes.

The Anatolian passage was by no means an easy route to the east, for had the Wiros kept to the north they would have found difficulty in crossing the Armenian mountains; further south they would have come into contact with the peoples of Mesopotamia, and we should have found evidence of their presence. That some of them passed this way about 2200 /B.C./ we have already seen, but others had passed eastwards earlier, apparently by a different route, for otherwise it is difficult to account for the presence of the Kassites on the Iranian plateau in the time of Hammurabi. The complete absence of any evidence of a movement eastward from the Hungarian plain in neolithic days, and the fact that any such movement would have been compelled to cross the area occupied by the settled Tripolje-folk, seem to be fatal to the literal acceptance of this hypothesis.

Taking all factors, anthropological and archæological, geographical and linguistic, into consideration, and in spite of the difference in opinion expressed by Dr. Giles, whose authority to pronounce on the linguistic data all must acknowledge, I am venturing to identify the nomad steppe-folk with the primitive Wiros, while admitting the possibility that the beginnings of their language may date back to Magdalenian and Azilian times, when they may have been living surrounded by the Carpathian ring.

/Chapter XIII/

P’S AND Q’S

We have seen that with one notable exception, little attempt has been made to explain the early history of the Wiros since 1889, and the position of the Aryan hypothesis has remained stationary.[460] It is true that fresh evidences of such languages have been discovered in the uplands of Asia, and a new group, known as Tocharian,[461] have been identified. Certain affinities to the group have also been noted in the Hittite language, which has been claimed by some writers to be a true Wiro tongue.[462] But this view has not received general acceptance. Little use, however, has been made of this fresh evidence towards solving the problem of the Aryan cradle.

But early in 1891 an important communication was made to the Philological Society by Professor, afterwards Sir, John Rhys.[463] This paper raised a storm of hostile criticism, especially in Germany,[464] and its conclusions have not found favour in philological circles. As, however, some of Sir John’s conclusions coincide in certain particulars with the reconstruction offered in the previous pages, based on other evidence, the thesis demands reconsideration.

To summarise briefly, Rhys pointed out that the Celtic languages, now confined to the north-western fringe of Europe, fell naturally into two well-defined groups. One of these, the Gaelic, or as he preferred to call it the Goidelic, was spoken in Ireland, North-West Scotland and the Isle of Man. The other, formerly called Cymric, but by Rhys styled Brythonic, was spoken in Wales, Cornwall and Brittany. There are several marked differences between these two groups of languages, the most important being that the C in the Goidelic, which represents an earlier Q or Qu, is replaced in Brythonic by a P or perhaps a B. Thus the Celtic languages fall into two well-defined groups which may be called the Q and P dialects.

Rhys pointed out, too, that in the Italian peninsula the same phenomenon appeared. In Latin, and the dialects most closely allied to it, Q or Qu was found, while in the Umbrian forms of speech, used over the greater part of the peninsula this sound was replaced by P. Thus there were Q and P dialects in Italy also.

He further pointed out that the Greek language, with certain exceptions, was a true P dialect, for the Latin _equus_ corresponded to the Greek ἱππὁς. He suggested, however, that the Ionic dialect used by Herodotus and Hippocrates, which frequently had a κ where the standard Greek had a π,[465] was a descendant of a form of Q speech, but that the Qu had degenerated into κ, as it had into C in Goidelic.

Further, he pointed out that the Q dialects, Goidelic, Latin and Ionic Greek, formed so to speak an outer ring, while Brythonic, Umbrian and standard Greek lay within them. He argued from this that these tongues had spread in two waves from a common centre, which he fixed in the mountain zone of Central Europe, and thence the Q tongues had spread by invasion, to be followed some few centuries later by a second invasion of P people, who had driven the Q people further from the original home.

He suggested that the change of Q into P had been effected by a conquering group of aliens, who had adopted the Wiro tongue from their subjects, but retained some details of the phonological laws of their original language, which accounted for this labialisation. He further suggested that these alien invaders were the Alpine inhabitants of the Swiss lake-dwellings.[466]

This paper was received with hostile criticism and derision, especially by some German students of Celtic tongues.[467] It had little better reception in France, and the British and Irish Celtic scholars, with a few exceptions, treated the idea with contempt. The theory has never received the consideration and fair criticism which a paper from so eminent an authority on Celtic languages deserved.

The main facts as to the Celtic and Italic dialects are not in dispute. There can be no question that in both of those areas both Q and P groups are or were in existence, and that the Q are in the outer and the P in the inner ring. With regard to Greek however, the case is different, and it is generally considered that the dialect of Herodotus and Hippocrates is purely local and not necessarily primitive, and it has been pointed out that had the original Ionic dialect been a Q tongue, signs of this would have been apparent in Homer. It is also becoming more common to consider Greek as having closer affinities with Persian than with Italic or Celtic, though one wonders whether this connection is not being exaggerated as the pendulum swings from the over-estimated resemblance formerly recognised between the two languages of the Classical world.

We must, however, agree that the Greek part of Rhys’ hypothesis will not stand, at least without considerable emendation, nor have we found from our archæological investigations any reasons for believing that the Alpine inhabitants of the Swiss lake-dwellings over-ran as conquerors the surrounding regions. The evidence, in fact, points in an opposite direction. The deletion of these two points is not fatal to the hypothesis, and we may still consider that there is, on philological evidence, a _prima-facie_ reason for believing that from somewhere in Central Europe, from the area which we have termed the Celtic cradle, two waves of invaders, of Wiro speech if not of Wiro race, set out in various directions, that the Q was the earlier and the P the later, and that both entered Italy and the Celtic lands.

We may further admit the possibility or even the probability, that an alien element, not necessarily non-Wiro, had entered the Celtic cradle before the departure of the second wave, and that it was to this alien element that the labialisation was due. Lastly, we may admit that, though evidence of the Q wave into Greece is non-proven, there is no doubt of the arrival of the P people, but these P people spoke a tongue showing greater affinities with Iranian speech, especially in their names for weapons and other warlike paraphernalia,[468] than is to be recognised in the other P tongues.

Now we have seen from the study of archæological evidence that the men of the leaf-shaped sword passed at one time into Italy, where they settled near Lake Fucino, and a little later some entered the Celtic lands of the west, while earlier a few adventurers reached Greek lands. Later some refugees from the mountain zone reached many parts of France and the British Isles. All these seem to have come from the same Celtic cradle and to have been of the same racial type or, to speak more accurately, types. Later still, we have seen that the Koban folk, who had learned the use of iron in the neighbourhood of the Caucasus, returned to the Danube valley, after which some of them entered Greece as Dorians, while others entered Italy with the Villa-nova culture and a third group pursued their predecessors over all parts of France except the Seine valley. It seems possible, if not probable, that these two waves of invasions may have been those which brought Q and P speech respectively into these different parts of Europe. If this equation be accepted, the main features of Sir John Rhys’ hypothesis have been proved. But it will not be wise to jump too hastily to a conclusion, for the fact that there were two waves of invaders and two of Wiro dialects may be only a coincidence. We must attempt to apply a confirmatory test.

In Greece we have seen that Casson has shown good cause why we should believe that the advance of the men with the iron sword should be equated with the Dorian invasion. The Dorians spoke a P dialect and may well have been the first to introduce such a tongue into Greece. We have seen how Rhys’ view that Q dialects survive in the writings of Herodotus and Hippocrates is open to question, but we have also noted that Wace had equally questioned the “Achæan” invasion proposed by Ridgeway. I have already put forward an amended scheme for the latter, and suggested the arrival of only a few Nordic adventurers. Had these been Wiros of Q speech, they could not, owing to the paucity of their numbers, have imposed their tongue upon their subjects. If, therefore, we accept the equation for Greek lands, we need not expect to find evidence of the survival of Q speech in Greece in the fifth century.

But I have suggested that these “Achæan” adventurers were stragglers from the band of Nordics who were responsible for the Phrygian invasion of Asia Minor. If the equation, which we are endeavouring to prove, were true, we should expect that the Phrygian language was of the Q form. Unfortunately we know little of the Phrygian tongue even in the palmy days of Athens, still less of its form in the thirteenth century.

All philologists are agreed that with the language of Thrace it formed the Thraco-Phrygian group, from which, according to some philologists, modern Albanian is derived. Dacian is also believed to have belonged to the same group. Some years ago Dr. Tomaschek collected together, from Greek and Latin sources, all the words which might be considered as belonging to this group, but most of these are place-names or names of plants. This is not very satisfactory material for our purpose, for place-names may have been inherited from the previous inhabitants, while names of plants may be loan words. Further than this most of the words have been preserved by Greek writers, and there is no Q in the Greek language. Still I have thought it well to search through the lists compiled by Tomaschek, and though the result is, perhaps, not very convincing, the presence of such words as καναρος, κενθος, Quimedava or κουιμε-δαβα, Coila or Cuila, κερκινη, and several others certainly hints that the Thraco-Phrygian tongues may have been Q dialects.[469]

The arguments from the east, while they do not in any way contradict our equation, and may even be said to give it some support, are not quite decisive; at any rate something more conclusive is desirable. It is useless to look for this in the west, in Celtic lands, for our documentary evidence scarcely antedates the time of Julius Cæsar, or, at any rate, such earlier evidence as we possess is both meagre and uncertain. Finally all the evidence has been the subject of dispute, on almost every item differences of opinion have been expressed, and we have no sure or unquestioned data on which to depend. The controversy has also, unhappily, become associated with other differences of opinion.

It will be well, then, to leave for a time the consideration of the Celtic evidence, and to endeavour to test our equation without reference to the linguistic data of the west. There remains, then, only one other area in which to search for our confirmatory test, the Italian peninsula.

Professor Conway[470] has given us to understand that the Osco-Umbrian dialects, which were P languages, were spoken throughout Italy from Umbria southwards, and doubtless, if we may judge from the statement of Herodotus already quoted, as far north as the foot-hills of the Alps, before the Gauls had invaded the valley of the Po. The only exceptions to this spread of these dialects were Etruria, or the greater portion of it, and a part of Latium, in which Latin dialects of the Q type were spoken. These Latin dialects, Conway tells us, were spoken by the Latini, the Marsi, the Æqui, the Hernici, the Falisci, who dwelt within the borders of Etruria, and to some extent by the Sabini.[471]

The linguistic position of the Sabines seems uncertain. In the passage quoted Conway enumerates them among the tribes who spoke Q dialects, but later on, when mentioning some of those who had P speech, he adds in a footnote that perhaps Sabine should be included among these. The position of the Sabine tongue is then uncertain. If this were so, the same uncertainty may apply to the Faliscans, for little if anything is known directly of their dialect, but Conway states that it is “certain that they were akin to the Sabines across the Tiber, and that their city was subdued and governed by the Etruscans.”[472]

This leaves us with four tribes, who undoubtedly spoke Q languages, the Latini, Marsi, Æqui, and Hernici. The area occupied by them is only roughly indicated by Conway, but I gather that he agrees with the boundaries delineated by Kiepert.[473] The map given in Fig. 26 gives these bounds, and it will be seen that in many respects the region they occupy agrees with the area in which all the Italian leaf-shaped swords have been found. There are, however, certain marked differences.

Out of nine swords of Type D, four are found within the area of Q speech, and one at Sulmona, only just outside and within the area of Sabine speech. One is a stray, found somewhere in Apulia, and three, together with one of Type C, have been found not far from Lake Trasimene. The solitary sword of Type B, found at Ascoli, seems only to indicate that the line of approach was from the east.

Thus it seems that there is a fair equation between the swords and Q speech, but the latter must have been driven from the Trasimene region, and pushed westward in the Sabine area. Of the former presence and subsequent disappearances of the Q speech from the Trasimene region we have no evidence, but we have seen that the Etruscans arrived later than the leaf-shaped sword people and with a superior culture. We have also found reason for suspecting that the Villa-nova folk, who arrived still later, had made themselves a military aristocracy over the Etruscans, and the conquest or expulsion may have been due to them. We have seen that the Falisci, a tribe with Sabine affinities, were absorbed by the Etruscans. There is nothing inherently impossible in the same fate having overtaken the leaf-shaped sword people who had settled in the region around Lake Trasimene.

But with regard to the westward move of the Q peoples, and to the suggestion that they were driven from what was later Sabine territory, we are not dependent wholly upon conjecture, for Dionysius of Halicarnassus tells us that the tribes who occupied the region around Rome, after the barbarian Siculi, were the Aborigines.[474] Whether this term conveyed to Dionysius the same meaning as it does to us, or whether it was a corruption of a tribal name as some have thought,[475] does not concern us here. It is sufficient for our purpose that he mentions that their original home lay to the east, in the valley of the Velino and its tributary the Salto, which drains Lake Fucino. He mentions by name many of their cities, and describes the position of most of them. The sites of the majority have been identified, though some yet remain unknown. Judging by what can be ascertained of their position, we gather that the Aborigines occupied the Salto valley from Marruvium, on the shores of Lake Fucino, as far as Reatæ, where it joins the Velino, and thence to the junction of the latter with the Nera. One of their cities, Batia, lay considerably to the north, across the Apennines, in the direction of Ascoli, where the Type B sword was found. How far the territory of the Aborigines stretched towards Lake Trasimene is uncertain, as the sites of some of their towns remain unidentified, but several of them lay in that direction, outside the later area of Q speech, but in Sabine territory.

Dionysius tells us that one night the Sabines issued from Amiternum and seized Liste, the capital of the Aborigines, who retired to Reatæ, whence they endeavoured to recapture it.[476] They appear to have been successful eventually in recovering the land around Lake Fucino, but would seem to have lost the territory to the north-west around Reatæ. About the same time many of them migrated south-westwards to the lands around Rome.[477] As one of their original cities had been called Palatium it seems likely that it was they who gave its name to the Palatine Hill.

The general agreement between the area in which we find the leaf-shaped swords, the area occupied by the Aborigines before the Sabine expedition, and the area of Q speech, suggests that these three are one especially as there is a progressive abandonment of the north-western portion and a movement towards the south-west near the mouth of the Tiber. My suggestion is that the Aborigines were the descendants of the leaf-shaped sword people and the ancestors of the Q speaking Latin peoples of later days.

Umbrian speech, though it extended towards the south-east and surrounded the Latin tongues, is found mainly on the north-east of the Apennines, and seems to have come from that direction; before the advent of the Gauls it reached, as we have seen, to the foot of the Alps. This is the region in which we find the chief remains of the Villa-nova culture, which is not unlike that of the Dorians, so that it seems reasonable to equate this culture with the Osco-Umbrian or P dialects.

The Sabines, as we have seen, are said to have come from Amiternum, which is on the north-eastern slope of the Apennines, or rather in a valley which opens out on that side. We should, therefore, expect them to have been a P people. But, according to Dionysius, they over-ran a region peopled by the Aborigines, who we have found reason for thinking were a Q people, and, though doubtless they expelled the fighting men, a good number are likely to have remained behind. It is not surprising, therefore, that there should be some uncertainty as to whether the original Sabines spoke a P or a Q dialect.

All the Italian evidence is consistent with the view that the men of the leaf-shaped sword were Q speaking, while the men with the iron sword spoke P tongues, but before we come finally to a decision, it might be well to make a further test elsewhere. We have seen that the refugees from the mountain zone, armed with Type G swords, fled down the Rhone, the Loire, and the Seine, and that, while the men with the iron swords pursued them down the two former valleys, they left the Seine valley alone. Sir John Rhys and his supporters have suggested that Q speech was at one time spoken in Gaul, and have cited certain place-names in support of their case.[478] The value of this evidence has been disputed, but there is one name, in two forms, which so obviously belongs to Q speech, that its value cannot well be denied, and this is _Sequana_, the ancient name for the Seine, and _Sequani_, the tribe who lived by its banks. It cannot be merely a coincidence that the best attested Q names have been noted just where Type G swords are found not followed by iron swords, and this case, bearing out as it does the general tenour of the Italian evidence, seems to me to be conclusive.

I would submit, therefore, that the archæological evidence, which I have given in this and in previous chapters, proves, as conclusively as the circumstances of the case are likely to admit, that the thesis of Sir John Rhys that two waves of people left Central Europe for Italy and the west, the first speaking a Q and the second a P tongue, is absolutely correct, though modifications need to be made in the application of this theory to Greek lands. His view that the P Folk were the people of the Swiss lake-dwellings we have seen good reason to reject.

/Chapter XIV/

THE WANDERINGS OF THE WIROS

I have now cited almost all the evidence which I have collected to solve the question of the Aryan cradle and the dispersal of the Wiros from Central Europe, especially of their raids into the Celtic lands of the west. Except for a few details I have found myself in agreement with other writers, sometimes with this, at others with that authority. This is not surprising, for so many shots have been made, often at random, and without sufficient evidence, that it would be strange if some of them had not hit the mark.

Thus with Penka I have argued for an Aryan race, which was Nordic in type, with Cuno that the primitive Wiro language developed on an open plain, which, with Latham and Schrader, I have placed on the Russian steppe. I have found myself in agreement with Sir John Rhys on the main features of his thesis that the Q and P Wiros left Central Europe in two successive waves, and I have argued that the Q Wiros were armed with bronze leaf-shaped swords. This last suggestion has already been hazarded in this country by Crawford,[479] though backed up with inadequate evidence, and in France by M. Hubert,[480] with whose evidence I am unacquainted, as his work dealing with the subject has not appeared as I write.

But in all these cases I have endeavoured to support my argument, not merely with philological data, as has been the case with most of my predecessors, but with evidence drawn from anthropology and archæology. The evidence from the Italian swords, backed up as it is by the absence of Hallstatt iron swords from the Seine valley, seems so decisive that I feel that the equation of the Q peoples with the spread of the bronze swords is beyond dispute.

But if this general reconstruction of the early history of the Wiro movements is to be considered correct, in outline at least, it must be shown that it will fit in with all the linguistic evidence available; at any rate that it is not incompatible with it. For that reason I propose in this chapter to summarise briefly, as I conceive them, the wanderings of the Wiros over Europe and Asia, from their first departure from south-east Europe.

We have found reason for believing that before 3000 /B.C./, and probably for long before that date, the Wiros had been occupying the Russian steppes east of the Dnieper, and had perhaps wandered across the Volga into Turkestan. They were a nomad people, living, perhaps, partly by hunting, but mainly by herding cattle on the grassy steppes, and the parklands which fringed them on the north. They had tamed the horse, and held this animal in great veneration. Its name constantly occurs as part of their own names,[481] they rode it like cow-boys “punching” their cattle, and if we may judge from the habits of their descendants, it was what may be described as a cult animal.

We have seen that they seem to have been of the Nordic type, but this statement needs qualification. We are accustomed to speak of Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans, and to describe their physical characters in considerable detail. We are well aware that the population of every country in Europe is mixed, and contains many examples of at least two of these types and a larger number of individuals who resemble one type in this feature and another in that; there are also many who display intermediate characters. But from this mass of heterogeneous material we believe that we have isolated these types, which we consider pure, and we treat the bulk of the population as a mixture of these, varying in its components and their proportions in each region. This postulates that there was a time, the race-making period of some writers,[482] when each of these races was living, pure and unmixed, in some area of isolation.

That this position has led to clear thinking and has advanced the science of physical anthropology is undoubted, but we have to consider whether it represents a condition which has actually occurred. That such a pure and homogeneous type would evolve if a community were isolated from all others for a sufficient length of time is probable, but we have no clear evidence that such a state of isolation has been preserved for a sufficient period in any part of Europe, or for that matter in the world. The Andamanese have for long kept themselves in fairly complete isolation in a small group of islands, yet their type seems to show evidence of admixture. The same is more true of the Australian aborigines, although the island continent has almost succeeded in keeping out other placental animals. It is true that as we go back into the past, especially into early neolithic times, the skulls in any given region appear more homogeneous than is the case at later periods. After the forests had appeared in Magdalenian times, and until the metal trade arose, communities seem to have been more isolated than either before or after. This was, apparently, the race-making period postulated by McDougall. But the communities who settled at that time in these regions of isolation were to some extent of mixed ancestry, and their isolation was not of sufficient length to insure absolute homogeneity, though we find a closer approximation to it then than has occurred since.

We have seen at the close of Chapter II. that what we have been accustomed to consider the Mediterranean race is in reality a mixture of several late palæolithic types, all somewhat resembling one another in their most conspicuous features, and the same seems to have been true of the Nordic Wiros, during their race-making period on the Russian steppe. Unfortunately we have no very long series of skulls to study, and in the case of some we are uncertain whether they belong to this or to a slightly later date. But Sergi has described a series of ninety-one,[483] which will give us some idea of their range of variation. Thirty-six of these skulls have indices varying from seventy-three to seventy-six, thirty-one more between seventy-one and seventy-eight, while the remaining twenty-four range outside these from sixty-five to eighty-one. Many of these skulls are very high, and so conform to the type of Brünn-Brux-Combe Capelle, and this has led Fleure to suspect that this late palæolithic type, the essentially intrusive element into the west of Solutrean times, is present in considerable numbers among these steppe-folk.[484] According to Sergi fifty-one out of the ninety-one show this feature and these are distributed pretty generally among all indices from sixty-five to seventy-nine.

Again, Bogdanov has given us reason for believing that two races were inhabiting the government of Moscow during the kurgan period. “One of these races was robust, with a large and long head, an elongated face, and, according to some examples, with hair more or less fair. The other, smaller and more poverty stricken, belongs to a brachycephalic people, having a shorter face, a wider and shorter head, and chestnut hair.”[485] He shows, too, that in the centre of the area the long-headed type was purest, and cites twenty-three skulls from the kurgans of Souja, in the government of Kursk, of which nineteen were true dolichocephals, while three women and one child were subdolichocephalic.

We may, I think, consider the two skulls described by Sergi with an index of eighty, and the one with an index of eighty-one, as belonging to a foreign element living on the border of the steppes, perhaps as belonging to the Tripolje folk. If so we may consider our primitive Nordics as having fairly long and narrow heads, though in this respect not so uniformly narrow as was the case with the Mediterraneans of the west. The cephalic index seems to have ranged from sixty-five to seventy-nine, though more usually from seventy-one to seventy-eight, while the more typical members of the group varied from seventy-three to seventy-six. These figures will be found to agree fairly well with observations made on the tall fair people of the present population of North Europe.

We can then imagine our Wiros as a somewhat variable race, with heads which conform to the narrow rather than to the broad type, tall and robust, though probably neither so tall nor so robust as many of the modern Nordics. There is reason for believing them to have been fair, with transparent skins, light hair and grey eyes, though it is likely enough that in colouration, too, there was considerable variation. We may well believe that the extremely fair colouring of the modern Swedes is a later specialisation, due to a few thousand years of life in a northern home, but we shall do well, I would suggest, to think of the original Wiros as blonds rather than brunets, though not necessarily or in all cases possessing an extreme degree of blondness. Such then I would have you picture the Wiros on the steppe, and I would also remind you that many of them seem to have been descendants of the late Aurignacian and Solutrean horse-hunters, and that they may have developed the rudiments of their language in some post-Solutrean time within the Carpathian ring.

We have seen reason for believing that a period of drought, occurring some centuries before 3000 /B.C./, drove some of them towards the Baltic. It is possible, though I think improbable, that these may have been the ancestors of the group who use Teutonic speech. I am more inclined, however, to see in them the original speakers of Lithuanian and the Baltic tongues. Whether there was also at this time a move to the east is uncertain. Kurgans are said to stretch to the north-east well into Siberia, but we have insufficient data at present to determine their age or indeed whether they belong to Wiro culture. It is possible, however, that the north-westerly movement was paralleled by one to the north-east, into the Obi basin, and the Wiros may have wandered as far north as Tobolsk, or even to the Arctic Circle.

But the great dispersal was about 2200 /B.C./ On this occasion the drought seems to have been more excessive or more prolonged, for it is believed that the steppe was left for awhile uninhabited. That the movements passed east and west is certain, for we find evidence of the abandonment of settled villages both in the Tripolje area and at Anau. With the westerly movement we have dealt at some length; that to the east must now demand our attention.

We have seen that shortly after 2200 /B.C./ nomad horsemen arrived on the Iranian plateau and that their appearance attracted the attention of Hammurabi and his counsellors. That these nomads, who were known as Kassites, were Wiros is certain, for philologists seem agreed that their language was of this type.[486] They were the first to introduce the horse into this area, and that this animal was held in reverence among them seems clear from the adoption of this beast as a divine symbol.[487] It seems unlikely that the Kassites were the sole representatives of this eastward move. It may be that it is to this date that we are to attribute the kurgans found in the Obi basin, or perhaps they found adequate pasture for their herds on the lower slopes of the Hindu Kush and the region around Balkh. We are as yet uncertain whether the group of Wiros, who may more properly claim the name of Aryas, and who spoke Indo-Iranian dialects, left the steppe at this time or on the earlier occasion but deductions drawn from linguistic evidence, from Vedic and Avestan sources, and from later Persian legend would lead us to expect that about 2000 /B.C./ the undivided Aryas were occupying the eastern parts of Russian Turkestan. A little later, perhaps, a group of these, speaking a language which had Iranian affinities, made themselves lords of eastern Armenia.

These are generally known as the Mitanni or Mitani barons; Professor Sayce has suggested to me that the name Mitan is the same as Midas, which would hint at a Phrygian origin, but the Iranian affinities of their language and the early date at which they appear in the Armenian mountains suggest that they arrived before the Phrygian invasion of Asia Minor, while the fact that they were located on the eastern rather than the western side of the Armenian _massif_ leads one to believe that their line of approach was from Turkestan or the Iranian plateau on the east, rather than from Thracian territory on the west.

With the westward move of the Wiros I have already dealt in a former chapter. Having destroyed the Tripolje culture some passed along the sandy heaths of Galicia, entering Bohemia and Hungary through the Moravian gap, and displacing the Beaker-folk who passed northwards to Jutland, Holland and the British Isles. Others passed round the south-west shores of the Euxine to the Gallipoli peninsula where they divided, one party skirting the north Ægean coast to the grassy plain of Thessaly, where they introduced Dhimini ware, and where their sudden appearance on horseback gave rise to the legends of the Centaurs. The other party crossed the Hellespont, sacked Hissarlik II. and passed on to the grass lands in the centre of Anatolia. Here they organised the eastern Alpine tribes into a great empire, and though, apparently, they adopted the language of their subjects, they introduced some of their own words and idioms, including the numerals, into that tongue, and most important of all established in the Hittite empire the worship of the Wiro deities.

Such seems to have been the distribution of the Wiros about 2000 /B.C./, or a little later, and for the next 500 years we find little evidence of movement, except that the Kassites, about 1760 /B.C./ established themselves as rulers in Mesopotamia. The great split between the Indian and Iranian Aryas must have taken place about this time, causing the former to cross Afghanistan and enter the Punjab, while the latter continued to roam the steppes of Turkestan, and eventually to cross the Volga into South Russia, where they occupied the plain as far west as the foot of the Carpathians.[488]

We may now for a time leave the Asiatic sections and concentrate our attention upon those Wiros who entered what we have termed the Celtic cradle. Some passed into the mountain zone, where others had arrived before them, and made themselves lords of the settled agricultural Alpine lake-villages; these were the proto-Celts. Others seem to have remained in the plain of Hungary, continuing perhaps their former nomadic life. These, who had spread into the basin of the Morava, became the Thraco-Phrygian group. Between these two, in the lower valleys of the Drave and the Save, in Croatia and perhaps in Bosnia, were a third group, who may be termed proto-Italic. It must not be taken for granted that from the time of their arrival these three groups were quite sharply separated. We have seen, however, that the division of the people of the plain and the mountain zones arose quite early, largely from the difference between their modes of life. It is probable that many dialects arose, and that by degrees some of the mountain Wiros extended to the south-east, even as far as Herzegovina, and these gradually became separated from the main body of their fellows. The main group developed Celtic dialects, and south-eastern group Italic, though both, it must be remembered, spoke Q tongues.

Soon after 1500 /B.C./, when the first leaf-shaped sword, Type A, had been evolved, some Wiros seem to have passed over the mountains into the Friuli. It may have been merely a raid or a trading venture, but the Treviso specimen suggests that these swords had remained in use and had developed into a local type, so that it is possible that we may see in this, evidence of a small migration of Wiros through the Friuli to settle in the Veneto. The evidence is admittedly slight, but it seems to point to the introduction at this time into the regions lying at the head of the Adriatic of the Venetian dialects, which appear to be more archaic in form than the other Italic tongues.

During the Type B period, between 1450 and 1400 /B.C./, we have evidence of a northward movement to Schleswig-Holstein and Jutland, and the fact that these Type B swords continue in the north an independent development suggests that the party who carried them thither were not engaged in a temporary raid. I am inclined to see in this movement the arrival in the north of that band of Wiros, who introduced into the Baltic region Teutonic speech and the legends and the cult of Odin.[489] As we have seen Wiros had arrived there more than a thousand years before, but these earlier invaders, I have suggested, had spoken languages more akin to the Baltic group, and were, if my interpretation of the facts is correct, the red-haired worshippers of Thor.[490] Thus we get the three groups of people, forming the three classes of serfs, farmers, and nobles, which are mentioned in Scandinavian legend,[491] by the super-position of the sword-bearing Teutonic Wiros upon the early group of Baltic-speaking Wiros, who had in their turn mastered and enslaved the Mongoloid people responsible for the Arctic culture.[492]

It was soon after 1300 /B.C./ that a small group from the Italic zone, coming probably from Bosnia, passed south and then crossed the Adriatic, landing a little south of Ancona at the mouth of the Truentus. Passing up the valley of that river some settled at Batia near its head waters, while others crossed the Apennines to the valley of the Velinus and thence to Reatæ, which stood at its junction with the Himella. Thence some passed south eastward to Lacus Fucinus and others north-westward to Lacus Trasimenus. These, as I have endeavoured to prove, were the Wiros who introduced into the peninsula the Latin tongue and formed the essential Roman patrician _gentes_.

About the same time there were irruptions from the plain; the movements were probably gradual and may have begun somewhat earlier, but direct evidence of this phase is at present lacking. These people of the plain advanced into Thrace, introducing there the Thracian tongue and the worship of Ares; they dominated the aborigines, including the thrifty lake-dwelling Pæonians, and made themselves masters of much of what was afterwards known as Macedonia. Some of these tribes, notably the Briges, crossed the Hellespont and introduced Phrygian speech into Asia Minor, in the east of which it still survives as Armenian.

It was some straggling adventurers from this movement who about 1250 /B.C./ entered Thessaly, where, as we have seen, some Wiros had long been settled. Some may have come from Thracian lands, some down the Vardar valley, and some stragglers from the Latin group, perhaps, down the Spercheus valley, having tarried awhile around Dodona. These were the “Achæan” heroes, who seem to have made themselves masters of the Mycenean city states, groaning under the rule of Minoan tyrants. A generation later these joined others in attacking Egypt, and it was their grandsons who, under the leadership of the king of men, sacked the city of Priam.

The next movement came from the Celtic mountain zone. It was between 1200 and 1175 /B.C./ that the Celtic lords, accompanied by the bravest of their henchmen, left the Celtic cradle, crossed the Rhine, and passed through the Belfort gap into Gaul. By degrees they conquered the whole of the country, though they made their mark less in Aquitaine and Brittany. Others, passing in all probability down the Rhine, landed on the east coast of Great Britain, and settled in the eastern counties and in Wessex. It is too soon, as yet, to define the area which they occupied, but the available evidence, derived from the swords and the finger-tip ware, suggests the region south-east of the chalk scarp. Later on a few of these passed across the densely-wooded Midland plain, across Wales by the upper Severn valley and the Bala cleft, and reached the gold fields of Ireland. It was some little time, however, before they settled in any numbers in the land which still preserves their language.

This seems to be all that we can as yet restore of the movements of the Q Wiros, though there is a sequel to be added later; we must turn now to the problem of the P speaking people. We have seen that about the time that the Celts were leaving the mountain zone for the west, bands of Wiros from the plain, passing through the Moravian gate, across Galicia and Podolia, reached the rich valley of the Koban to the north of the Caucasus mountains. Here they learned the use of iron from their humble neighbours on the other side of the mountains, who were perhaps the Chalybes, and made for themselves steel blades for their swords. It was during their sojourn here that they must have mixed with other Wiros who were still roaming the steppes of this region, and who were almost certainly of Iranian speech, which was spoken in this area in the time of Herodotus, and still survives among the Ossetes[493] in the Caucasus mountains. They may, too, have come into contact and intermarried with other folk, who were perhaps not Wiros. For some reason, which I do not pretend to explain, their speech, which on their arrival must have been allied to Thracian, changed its phonological laws, and they acquired the habit of labialising the Qu of their original tongue.

Rostovtzeff has suggested that these Koban Wiros were the Cimmerians,[494] and since, as we have seen, these P speaking people appear a few years later in Gaul, and again are found approaching, if they do not actually reach, the peninsula of Jutland, it seems reasonable to believe that the statement of Posidonius,[495] which has received Ridgeway’s approval,[496] is correct, and that the Cimmerians of Russia and of the west,[497] as well as the people who gave their name to the Cimbric Chersonese are all one P speaking people, and that we must include in their number the Brythonic Cymry of Britain, in spite of what Rhys has written to the contrary.[498] Whether the name was originally _com-brox_, _compatriots_, or not, I must leave to philologists to determine, but if Rhys’ etymology is correct, these compatriots were those who set out from the Koban to conquer the greater part of Europe. If this be so the statement quoted by Pliny from Lycophron that the Cimmerii were a people living around Lake Avernus[499] may not be a poetic fable, as has been supposed, but may show us that some of the Villa-nova invaders of Italy retained for a time the common name which survives in Wales to-day. Thus I am assuming that the words κιμμέριοι, κίμμεροι, Cimbri Cymry are all one, and suggest the use of the term Kimri[500] for the whole group.

Herodotus tells us that the Russian Cimmerians built castles or forts,[501] a custom which is found among the early iron age or Hallstatt inhabitants of the mountain zone,[502] and reached this country somewhat later in the form of Hill-top camps. Their distribution has not yet been well worked out, but their date is Hallstatt or sometimes later, and the available evidence from their distribution in time and space suggests that they were the work of different branches of the Kimri.

A large number of the Kimri, perhaps the greater part, remained in the Koban region until the seventh century, when they were displaced by incoming Scythian hordes, who appear to have been of mixed Iranian and Mongol origin; then they overran Asia Minor as far as Sardis.[503] But many of these Kimri left the steppe almost immediately after they had developed their iron swords and settled in Thrace; later they moved up the Danube valley as far, at least, as its junction with the Save. It was not long before the bulk of them moved southwards, probably down the Vardar valley, and about 1000 /B.C./ began the Dorian invasion of Greece. These introduced into that country iron swords and a P tongue, which, owing to their having mingled with Iranian neighbours in the steppe, retained marked affinities with that group of languages, especially in connection with weapons and other warlike materials.

The remainder divided, the larger group pushing up the Danube valley towards Ulm and Sigmaringen where they adopted the Celtic speech of their subjects, but labialising the Qs. The smaller group made themselves masters of North Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia, and like their fellows adopted the language of the country, which was allied to Latin, but with the usual changes.

It was the latter group which was the first to move, either across the Adriatic or to the north-west and then over the Predil pass into the Friuli. Though they introduced their culture among the Veneti they did not supplant their language, but they pushed on across the Po valley, destroying the Terramara settlements and dispersing their inhabitants to Etruria, Latium and the region around Tarentum. They settled in the plain to the north of the Apennines, with their headquarters at Felsina or Bononia, and gradually conquered all the peninsula except Etruria, the Greek colonies and the lands occupied by the Latin tribes. It is doubtful whether these Kimri who invaded Italy were ever known to themselves by one name, but to others they were summed up as Ombri or Umbri. Later, as we have seen, one of their tribes, the Sabines, issuing by night from Amiternum, displaced some of the Latin tribes from the region around Reatæ, whence the dispossessed Latins departed towards the mouth of the Tiber. Here some of them coalesced with Terramara refugees, who had erected a dry _terramara_ on a hill-top beside the river, and to this hill they gave the name of one of their abandoned cities, Palatium, so that it became _mons palatinus_. Later, when it had been freshly laid out and surrounded by a wall, it was called Rome.

The Sabines, who had overrun much of the Latin territory, even as far as the hill overlooking the Palatine, seem to have adopted the Latin language, while retaining a few features of their original Umbrian dialect. Soon afterwards some Kimri from Felsina seem to have made themselves war lords over Etruria, and to have for a time extended the Etruscan empire from the Alps to Pompeii, but being a small military aristocracy in a land with an ancient and advanced culture, they failed to impose their Wiro language upon the inhabitants.

But the larger group of Kimri had settled by the upper waters of the Danube and had adopted with modifications the Celtic speech. About 900 /B.C./ disagreements arose between them and the Q speaking Gaelic lords of the villages in the mountain zone, and no time was lost in attacking these communities in Switzerland and Savoy, in burning the pile-dwellings and expelling the inhabitants.

We must now take up again the tale of the bronze-using Q-speaking Celts, the story of fresh Gaelic movements, but this time a story of flight rather than of invasion. This was not a question only of Gaelic lords, for the Alpine peasants, who doubtless spoke a Celtic dialect and called themselves Celts, were also involved in this ruin. They fled by divers routes to the north and the west. By the swords of Type G we can trace their wanderings over Gaul, down the Rhone, the Loire and the Seine. Others seem to have fled northwards to Schleswig, Jutland, Sweden and even Finland, to escape their pursuers, while a large party landed in England, mainly between the Thames and the Wash, and found refuge with their relations who had settled on the open downs some centuries before.

The former arrivals had been Nordic lords, with perhaps a few half-breed retainers; the refugees were largely Alpine peasants, unaccustomed to pastoral pursuits on the high downs, and more anxious for water-meadows and arable patches by the margins of lakes and rivers. Settlements were made by the banks of the Thames between London and Richmond, and doubtless higher up the river. Lowlands were cleared in Wessex in the Vale of Pewsey, such as the village at All Cannings, and other settlements were made by lakes and marshes in South Wales.

In most parts of Gaul the Kimri followed the refugees, and drove them from the valleys of the Rhone and the Loire into the hills. In the Seine valley, however, the Sequani were left undisturbed and gave their name to the river. Though no positive evidence has appeared, so far as I know, there is reason for believing that many of these Gaelic wanderers found refuge in south Brittany and La Vendée, and persisted in their lake-dwelling culture. No pile-dwellings have been found in these parts, so far as I am aware, yet I suspect their existence; but perhaps the numerous islets in the Bay of Morbihan were a sufficiently safe refuge for these poor folk.

The Kimric invasion of Gaul reached at first neither to the extreme west nor to the north, for its main advance was down the Rhone valley to the Midi. But there is evidence that small bands moved towards the north-east, down the valleys of the Meuse and Moselle, and we can pick up their traces again in Belgium.[504] So far direct archæological evidence still further north fails us, at least in Hallstatt times, though perhaps the Kimri did not cross the mouth of the Rhine until they had adopted La Tène culture; but if, as I have suggested, we are to consider the name Cimbri as a variant of Kimri, they must have reached the peninsula of Jutland, to which they gave the name of the Cimbric Chersonese. That they came within sight of the Baltic sea is clear, for an old name for that sea, _Morimarusam_,[505] is Celtic. If, however, Rhys is correct in considering the word Goidelic,[506] it must have been given to the sea by the Gaelic refugees. In Jutland the Kimri came into contact with the Teutones, descendants of the Wiros who had carried northwards the Type B swords. Whether they fought them at first is uncertain, but by the second century they had made an unholy alliance with them to ravage the lands to the south, and they would again have carried fire and sword throughout Europe had not their operations been cut short in 102 /B.C./ at Aquæ Sextiæ by the Roman army under Marius.

It was apparently in the fourth century, or a few years earlier, that certain tribes of these Kimri, whether a southern branch of the Cimbri or tribes living to the south-west of the chersonese in Frisia, Holland or Belgium, is uncertain, began to move southwards and westwards. These were the Galati, Galli and Belgæ. They began in various waves to disturb southern Europe, and to harry the settled communities as far as Asia Minor, where they survived for several centuries as Galatians.

It is not necessary for our purpose to trace in detail these movements, except in so far as they affect our problem. In the second century, or thereabouts, the Veneti, one of these tribes, who had taken to the sea, sailed down the channel and settled at Vannes, at the head of the Morbihan bay.

Their arrival seems to have disturbed the Gaelic lake-dwellers of this region, for about this time we find people, whose culture show Breton affinities, settling on either side of the Irish channel. In the lake-villages of Glastonbury[507] and Meare we have evidence of the arrival of these refugees, and similar evidence may be found in Ireland, which received its first knowledge of iron and La Tène culture about this time.[508] In Ireland these timid folk built their usual lake-dwellings, and _crannogs_, in the lakes, though Macalister has recently seen in these fortified habitations evidence of the arrival of Gaelic conquerors, who thus defended themselves from the treachery of their subjects, among whom they were very unpopular.[509] But, as we have seen, the Gaelic war lords, with their bronze swords, had reached Ireland nearly a thousand years before.

It was during one of these late Kimric movements that the Belgian tribes began to cross the channel into Great Britain. It is doubtful, at present, whether the introduction of the use of iron and La Tène culture, which took place about 450 /B.C./, is to be attributed to them, for there were probably many trading posts along the coast, like the one excavated at Hengistbury Head,[510] which were in touch with the continent and could have imported these wares. Some of these settlements may even be earlier than the La Tène period; this is suspected in the case of Hengistbury, and was certainly the case at Eastbourne,[511] if the pottery found there recently really betokens a trading post, and not the arrival of a small group of Gaelic refugees from the further bank of the upper Rhine.

But these Belgic invaders were almost certainly responsible for the hill-top camps, which in the south of England seem to be earlier than 200 /B.C./, though probably much later in the north and west. To them we must also attribute the introduction of pedestal vases and other types of pottery which come, undoubtedly, from the Belgic area on the continent. Such Belgic movements continued until the first century, and had only ceased shortly before the arrival of Julius Cæsar in northern Gaul.

Thus the Kimri, or as we may now call them the Cymry, did not enter England until about 300 /B.C./, and for a time seem to have limited their settlements to the chalk lands. By degrees they spread to the oolite ridge, but it is doubtful whether they had progressed farther when Cæsar landed here. The dense Midland forest kept them back, and they seem to have made no attempt to reach Ireland, or, until after Cæsar’s time, to dispossess the Gaels of the Parret marshes. But early in the Christian era civil wars occurred between the tribes on either side of the Thames, which led eventually to Roman interference, and it was during the campaign of Aulus Plautius and his successors that dispossessed Cymric leaders, like Caractacus, fled with their followers to the west, and introduced into Wales a Cymric or Brythonic speech, the first Wiro dialect to be spoken regularly in the principality, except along trade routes and in the small Gaelic settlements above Cardiff.

/Chapter XV/

CONCLUSION

We have now traced in outline the history of Celtic peoples and Celtic lands from the Wurmian glaciation to the Roman conquest of Britain, and have cited as evidence the conclusions drawn from linguistic science and an extensive array of data of an anthropological and archæological character. Though most of the main conclusions arrived at have been suggested before, many of them to be subsequently discarded as lacking sufficient evidence, the main story of the Wiros and their wanderings, as I have outlined it above, seems to be compatible with all the positive information we possess, though it is in conflict, as I am well aware, with many theories that have been built upon them.

My views will not, I feel sure, meet with ready acquiescence from some Celtic scholars, especially from those who follow Zimmer and Kuno Meyer. This school has for thirty years been engaged in proving that there is no philological evidence for the existence of Goidelic speech in England or Wales, except such as was introduced from Ireland in the third or fourth century, /A.D./ I do not wish to dispute the philological evidence, nor do I feel competent to do so. I am ready to admit, at any rate for the sake of argument, that no such philological evidence exists. But England has been overrun by Kimri, Romans and Saxons, since the Gaels are believed to have come, and the absence of such evidence is not surprising.

I would, however, point out that the absence of philological evidence of their presence is not conclusive evidence of their absence. If my equation of the bronze swords and the finger-tip pottery with Q speaking people is correct, and the evidence from Italy and the Seine valley seems incontrovertible, the Gaels not only came to England, but settled there in considerable numbers, and even inhabited the southern slopes of the Glamorgan hills. No absence of Goidelic elements in British place-names is proof against such positive evidence. A few of the Gaels may have reached Ireland from the mouth of the Loire, in fact it seems probable that some such movement took place, though positive archæological evidence from the French side is for the present lacking.

Lastly there is an idea prevalent in some quarters that at one time there was in Europe a great Celtic empire. Some writers speak of this as though it had been a Gaelic empire. I have been unable as yet to trace this superstition to its source. I suspect that the chapters on Brennius in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Britons[512] are the real foundation for this strange belief, though naturally no-one to-day would base a serious hypothesis upon so shifty a foundation. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville[513] seems to rely mainly on a passage from Livy[514], in which the writer states that Bellovesus and Sigovesus, nephews of Ambigatus, king of the Bituriges, were sent simultaneously on two expeditions. Livy says nothing of an empire, and the movements which he dates at 600 /B.C./ seem to have occurred 300 years later. Déchelette[515] had dealt with this absurd notion according to its deserts.

The empire of Ambigatus, if such a thing existed, must have been a Kimric not a Gaelic power. But empires, if we are to understand the word in the sense in which it is ordinarily used, need settled conditions, such as did not prevail in north or north-west Europe until the arrival in the latter region of the _pax Romana_. It is conceivably possible that among the Kimri the tribal chiefs paid some form of loose allegiance to a super-chief, just as the Dorians, and to some extent the Hellenic world, recognised, very occasionally the hegemony of Sparta; but the evidence which we possess from classical sources does not even imply the existence of any such over-lordship among the Celts. In any case such vague hegemony could only have existed among the Kimric tribes, who for a thousand years harried the people of Celtic lands and the Celtic cradle, Gaelic lords or non-Wiro subjects alike. Before their arrival the Gaelic chiefs ruled only in the mountain zone, and the establishment of an empire in a mountainous country, draining into four rivers and four seas, would have been more impossible than in the open steppe.

/Appendix I/

CHRONOLOGY

Before the days of written history positive chronology is to some extent a matter of speculation, and until the beginning of this century it was little more than guesswork. But the discoveries of Cnossos provided synchronisms between the archæological remains of Egypt and Europe, and since then rival systems have arisen, all of which approximate more or less nearly to the truth. The palæolithic age, however, still remained in the region of guesswork, and wild and very discrepant attempts have been made to estimate its length. It is still the fashion for some writers to use inflated dates and to count years in hundreds of thousands, but the trend of the evidence produced of late is to encourage moderation, and it seems to me possible that the men responsible for the Fox Hall flints, if indeed they are of human workmanship, may not have been separated from their discoverer by a period of time exceeding 150,000 years.

When matters are so problematical, cautious writers are prone to be content with a comparative chronology, or to speak in terms of millennia. This method has advantages, for such writers run little risk of having to confess that they have made miscalculations. On the other hand, the use of actual dates leads to clear thinking, and to gaining a vivid impression of the story, and since we have now good grounds for estimating such dates, (and I shall not be ashamed to own up if later discoveries prove my estimates to be incorrect), I have adopted positive dates throughout, indicating where special uncertainty exists and the direction in which modification may be expected.

While the early palæolithic age is still a hazy past, and the middle palæolithic is not in much better case, the later palæolithic or reindeer age can now be shown to be relatively modern, while the _hiatus_ between that period and the neolithic age has disappeared. Thanks to the work of Baron de Geer[516] we have some foundation for a chronology of this period, and the results of this work have long been made known to English readers by Professor Sollas.[517] There seems to be little doubt but that the pause in the retreat of the Scandinavian ice by Lake Ragunda, which de Geer has dated at 5000 /B.C./, may be equated, as has been shown by Brooks,[518] with the Daun stadium of Penck.[519] The Fenno-Scandian moraines, on the other hand, can only be equated with the Bühl advance which took place towards the close of Magdalenian times, and this gives us a date of 7000 to 7500 /B.C./ for Magdalenian. The Goti-glacial moraines seem to indicate the second Würm maximum, and Sollas’ estimate for the interval seems eminently reasonable and has been adopted here; the first maximum of the Würm seems represented by the Dani-glacial line.

The later dates depend, by a series of synchronisms, on those ascertained from the Egyptian monuments, and it is unfortunate that on this point authorities differ. The difference between the various schools of thought has been well and fairly summarised by Dr. Hall;[520] the two great protagonists are Professor Flinders Petrie[521] and Dr. Edouard Meyer,[522] whose system has been adopted with slight modifications by Professor Breasted.[523] For this reason there are alternative systems in vogue for the period preceding 1580 /B.C./

Since so many great authorities, well acquainted with the facts and well able to interpret them, differ as to the result, one, who is not an Egyptologist, can decide between them only by testing the application of both systems in his own field of study. Having applied this test to both schemes, I have no hesitation in accepting the latter or shorter chronology, for by the former I find that the earlier periods would be more prolonged than the evolution of the culture warrants. I have therefore, throughout this work used dates based on those given for Egypt by Professor Breasted. This, of course, does not apply to Mesopotamian dates.

Dr. Hall would like to add another century or two to this shorter chronology,[524] and there is much to be said for such a step. I have not, however, ventured to do so here, but if such an amendment should prove generally acceptable, it would only be necessary to add the required figure to all my dates, other than Mesopotamian, prior to 1580 /B.C./, as far back as the beginning of the neolithic age.

/Appendix II/

MATRILINEAR SUCCESSION IN GREECE

Bachofen[525] was the first to draw attention to the existence of mother-right in Greece, and he was followed in 1886 by M’Lennan.[526] Both these authors claimed support from evidence which will not now stand investigation; a more judicious statement of the case was issued last year by Dr. Hartland.[527] In 1911 Professor Rose[528] set out to prove the case, but found that his evidence led him to a contrary conclusion, and he argued that such customs were unknown in Hellenic Greece. If by Hellenic he means “Achæan” and Dorian, that is to say Wiro Greece, I am in full agreement with him, but he includes also Minoan Crete, “because it is just possible that the population was in some sense Hellenic.”[529]

Rose argues that the existence of the worship of a mother goddess must not be taken as evidence of matrilinear succession, and were this the only detail on which we could rely, I would readily admit that the evidence was too slight. But we have some support from pedigrees. Rose dismisses the evidence from traditional genealogies, because “many of these are late, and a large part of them is doubtless pure invention.”[530] I do not feel confident that we must dismiss these genealogies, even if late, so summarily. Much of the detail contained in them occurs in the tragedians, who gathered it from the legendary matter current in their day. That there was much more such legendary matter, and that it was for long after kept alive in the minds of the people, is clear from the pages of Pausanias. Still doubtless there were some inventions, in fact it is obvious from internal evidence that this was so, but such interpolations can usually be detected, and by no means vitiate the pedigrees for our purpose. Often the interpolation is but the substitution of a fictitious name for an unnamed son or daughter, or when tradition states that C is the grandson of A, a name B has been invented to fill in the missing intermediate ancestor.

I propose, therefore, to examine some of these pedigrees, and will choose those of undoubted Minoan origin. Ridgeway[531] has suggested that the Minoans traced their descent from Poseidon, as the “Achæans” did from Zeus or Ares. There are three well-known families that do so, the Neleids of Pylos, the Danaans of the Argolid and the Cadmeians of Bœotia; in the two former cases there is ample evidence that those places received a population from Crete either in the first or early in the second Late Minoan period.

The Neleid pedigree is meagre and does not help us, but those of the Danaans and Cadmeians are fuller, and it is claimed by later writers that the families were connected. The first part of the genealogy is unquestionably fictitious, and designed to show a connection between the two families, but it is worth looking at.

/Poseidon/=_Libya_. | __________________________|____________ | | Belus=_Anchinoe_. Agenor | =_Telephassa_. _______|_____ _____________|_______________ | | | | | | Danaus= Ægyptus= Cadmus Phœnix Cilix _Europa_ | | =_Harmonia_ =/Zeus/. __|_______ |______________ | | | | | ________________________| 49 daus. | | | | | | | | | Minos. Rhadamanthus. Sarpedon. _Hypermnestra_--Lynceus 49 sons.

Here we find the late genealogist inventing a pedigree to connect the traditional families of the Argolid, Thebes and Cnossos with the eponymous heroes of Phœnicia, Cilicia and Egypt, and tracing them all from Poseidon. This seems to indicate that popular tradition believed all these families and peoples to have been connected, and that they were worshippers of the sea-god.

Let us now turn to the Danaan pedigree. That the fifty daughters of Danaus were mythical admits of no doubt, and the same is true of their fifty cousins, but it is possible that tradition is correct in claiming that one of them, Hypermnestra, married her cousin and succeeded her father. They are succeeded by Abas, who is followed by Acrisius, and then again we get a daughter Danaë, who is succeeded by her son Perseus. This hero is said to have left many sons, but here the pedigree gets mixed. It seems more likely to my mind that Perseus was succeeded by Electryon, whose daughter Alcmene married her cousin Amphitryon, though later writers, accustomed to a more strictly patrilinear succession, made Amphitryon succeed his father Alcæus as king of Mycenæ. But the times were troubled, the Pelopids were conquering the Peloponnese and the succession failed. It is well to remember, though, that Perseus is said to have had a daughter Gorgophane, whose name may well be fictitious and that her son or grandson Tyndareus was father of Clytemnestra. It would seem that both Agamemnon and Ægistheus claimed to reign not only by right of conquest but jure uxoris.

Hartland has well cited from the _Eumenides_ that “when Orestes, pursued by the Erinyes for his mother’s death, pleads that he is not of kin to her and wins by the casting vote of Athena, the Erinyes are startled and shocked on finding that even the gods decide against them, declaring that these, the younger gods, have over-ridden the old laws and unexpectedly plucked Orestes out of their hands.”[532]

Cadmus is said to have married Harmonia, daughter of Ares, again a fictitious name for a Thracian maiden. He had four daughters and one son, but it is not the latter who succeeds him, but the son of his fourth daughter Agaue. The Bacchæ of Euripides seems to show a struggle between the claims of the priestly or divine son of Semele, the eldest daughter, and the more mundane and regal son of Agaue, the youngest. The claim of Polydorus, the only son, does not arise until Dionysus has been banished and Pentheus slain.

While these genealogies, much garbled by writers accustomed only to patrilinear succession, show the frequent succession of a daughter or a daughter’s son, it may well be urged that there is no evidence of the importance of the maternal uncle, or of the _avunculi potestas_ of Sir James Frazer. This is undoubtedly true, and no reasonable claim can be made that this particular form of matrilinear succession obtained in Minoan Greece. But are we sure that there is only one type of matrilinear succession? The forms of patrilinear succession are not all alike. The laws on this subject varied between the Ripuarian and the Salic Franks, the British crown passes by a rule which differs from that governing the descent of a peerage, and peerages granted by letters patent differ from those dependent upon a writ of summons. I submitted the point recently to the late Dr. Rivers, who told me that it was his opinion that several types of matrilinear succession had probably existed and that he had found evidence of two in Melanesian society.

I do not suggest that the evidence which I have cited shows the typical matrilinear succession as it is commonly understood, or that among pre-Hellenic peoples “the father did not count,”[533] but it seems to hint that the succession was in the process of passing from some form of matrilinear to some form of patrilinear descent. Perhaps it may only indicate that the eldest child succeeded regardless of sex, but in any case there appears to be sufficient evidence for assuming that in Minoan cities an heiress counted for more politically than she did in “Achæan” households. It is well, too, to remember in this connection that these Minoan tyrants were probably Prospectors and that among another group of Prospectors, the Etruscans, “it is, of course, agreed on all hands that such a system did exist.”[534]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following abbreviations have been used:--

A. L’Anthropologie. A.A. Archäologischen Anzeiger. A.A.A. Annals of Archæology and Anthropology. Liverpool. A.A. & E. Archivo per l’Antropologia e la Etnologia. A.d.P. Annales de Paléontologie. A.f.A. Archives für Anthropologie. A.J. The Antiquaries’ Journal. A.J.P.A. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Washington, D.C. A.M. Atlantic Monthly. A.R. Asiatick Researches. A. & R. Atene e Roma. Arch. Archæologia. Arch. Camb. Archæologia Cambrensis.

B.P. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana. B.S.A. British School at Athens. B.S.A.L. Bulletin de la Société d’Anthropologie de Lyon. B.S.A.P. Bulletin de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris. B.S.R. British School at Rome.

C.G.I. Congrès Géologique International. C.I.A.P.A. Congrès International d’Archéologie Préhistorique et d’Anthropologie. C.M.H. Cambridge Mediæval History.

Έφ. Άρχ. Έφημερὶς Άρχαιολογικὴ. G.J. Geographical Journal. G.R. Geographical Review.

J.A.I. Journal of the Anthropological Institute. J.E.A. Journal of Egyptian Archæology. J.E.S. Journal of the Ethnological Society of London. J.I.S.I. Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute. J.R.A.I. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. J.S. Journal des Savants.

K.A.W. Kaiserlich. Akademie der Wissenschaften. K.D.A.I. Kaiserlich. Deutschen Archäologischen Institut. K.P.A.W. Königlich. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

M.A.N. Mémoires de la Société Royale des Antiquaires du Nord. M.P.K.K.A.W. Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien.

M. & P.M.L.& P.S. Memoirs and Proceedings of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society.

N.H. Natural History. New York. N.S. Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità.

P.A. & A.S.U.A. Proceedings of the Anatomical and Anthropological Society of the University of Aberdeen.

P.S.A. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London. P.S.E.A. Prehistoric Society of East Anglia.

Q.J.G.S.L. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. Q.J.R.M.S. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.

R.C. Revue Celtique. R.B.A. Report of the British Association. R.E.A. Revue d’École d’Anthropologie. R.E.S. Revue d’Ethnologie et de Sociologie. R.L.P.C. Revue de Linguistique et de Philologie Comparée. R.R.C.S.A. Reports of Research Committees of the Society of Antiquaries of London.

S.H.P.F. Stockholms Hogskolas Populära Föreläsningar. S.H.S. Society for Promoting Hellenic Studies. S.P. Science Progress. S.R. Smithsonian Report.

T.L.S. Times Literary Supplement. T.P.S. Transactions of the Philological Society.

W.M.B.H. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und der Herzogowina.

Z.f.Æ.S. Zeitschrift für Ægyptische Sprache. Z.f.E. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie.

- - - - -

Abercromby, The Hon. John: A study of the bronze age pottery of Great Britain and Ireland. Oxford (1912).

Aberg, N.: Die Steinzeit in dem Niederland. Upsala (1916).

Adelung, J. C.: Mithridates. 5 vols. Berlin (1806-17).

Armstrong, E. C. R.: Guide to the collection of Irish antiquities. Catalogue of Irish gold ornaments in the Royal Irish Academy. Dublin (1920).

Ashby, T., Bradley, R. N., Peet, T. E., and Tagliaferro, N.: Excavations in 1908-11 in various megalithic buildings in Malta and Gozo. Papers of the B.S.R. VI., No. 1.

Bachofen, J. J.: Das Mutterrecht; eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihren religiösen und rechtlichen Natur. 2nd. Ed. Basel (1897).

Beddoe, John: The races of Britain. Bristol (1885).

Bogdanov, A.: Quelle est la race la plus ancienne de la Russie central? C.I.A.P.A. Moscow (1892).

Bopp, F.: Vergleichende Grammatik. Berlin (1833).

Bopp, F.: A comparative Grammar. Trans. Lieut. Eastwick. 3 vols. London (1845-50).

Bopp, F.: Grammaire comparée. Trad. Michel Bréal. 5 vols. Paris (1866-74).

Borlase, W. C.: The Dolmens of Ireland. London (1897).

Bosanquet, R.: The obsidian trade in Phylakopi. S.H.S. Supp. Pap. iv., ch. viii. London (1904).

Boule, M.: L’homme fossile de la Chapelle-aux-Saints. A.d.P. (1911-13).

Boule, M.: La paléontologie humaine en Angleterre. A.xxvi. (1915).

Bourguignat, M. J. R.: Histoire des monuments mégalithiques de Roknia. Souvenirs d’une exploration scientifique dans le Nord de l’Afrique. Pt. iv. Paris (1868).

Boyd, H. A., and Hawes, C. H.: Gournia, Vasiliki and other prehistoric sites on the isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete. Philadelphia (1912).

Brace, C. L.: The Races of the Old World. London (1863).

Breasted, J. H.: A History of Egypt. 2nd. Ed. New York (1912).

Broca, P. P.: Mémoires d’anthropologie. 5 vols. Paris (1871-8).

Brooks, C. E. P.: The evolution of climate in north-west Europe. Q.J.R.M.S., xlvii. (1921), 173-194.

Bulleid, A., and Grey, H. St. G.: The Glastonbury Lake Village. Glastonbury (1911, 1917).

Burkitt, M. C.: Prehistory. Cambridge (1921) 1.

Burkitt, M. C.: Congress at Liége. P.S.E.A., iii. 453-7. Ipswich (1921). 2.

Bushe-Fox, J. P.: Excavations at Hengistbury Head, Hampshire. R.R.C.S.A., iii. Oxford (1915).

Cara, C. A. de: Gli Hethei-Pelasgi. 3 vols. Rome (1894-1902).

Casson, S.: Herodotus and the Caspian. Annual of the B.S.A., xxiii. (1918-9), 175-93.

Casson, S.: The Dorian Invasion in the light of some new evidence. Man., xxi. (1921), 39. 1.

Casson, S.: The Dorian Invasion in the light of some new evidence. A.J., i. (1921), 199-221. 2.

Catalogue of an important collection of Bronze Arms and Implements formed by Dr. S. Egger of Vienna. Sold by Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge, 25th June, 1891.

Chadwick, H. M.: The Cult of Othin. London (1899).

Chadwick, H. M.: The Heroic Age. Cambridge (1912).

Chamberlain, Houston Stewart: Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jarhunderts. (1899).

Chamberlain, Houston Stewart: The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. Trans. John Lees. 2 vols. London (1911).

Chantre, R.: Recherches anthropologiques dans le Caucase. Paris and Lyons (1885-7).

Chvojka: Arch. Chron. S. Russia (1904).

Clark, E. Kitson: A prehistoric route in Yorkshire. P.S.A. 2nd ser., xxiii. (1911), 309-25.

Clark, W. E. le Gros: On a series of ancient Eskimo skulls from Greenland. J.R.A.I. l. (1920), 281-98.

Cook, O. F.: Milpa agriculture, a primitive tropical system. S.R. for 1919. Washington (1921), 307-26.

Conway, R. S.: The Italic Dialects, edited with a grammar and glossary. Cambridge (1897).

Cordier, Henri: Histoire Générale de la Chine. Paris (1920).

Corréa, A. A. Mendes: Origin of the Portuguese. A.J.P.A., ii. (1919), 117-45.

Crawford, O. G. S. C.: The distribution of early bronze age settlements in Britain. G.J., Aug. and Sept. (1912). =1=.

Crawford, O. G. S. C.: On a gold torc. P.S.A., xxiv. (1912), 39-49. =2=.

Crawford, O. G. S. C.: Man and his past. Oxford (1921).

Crawford, O. G. S. C.: A prehistoric invasion of England. A.J., ii. (1922), 27-35.

Cunnington, M. E.: A village site of the Hallstatt period in Wiltshire. A.J., ii. (1922), 13-9.

Cuno, J. G.: Forschungen im Gebiete der alten Völkerkunde. Berlin (1871).

Dawson, C., Woodward, A. Smith and Smith, G. Elliot: On the discovery of a palæolithic human skull and mandible in a flint-bearing gravel overlying the Wealden (Hastings Beds) at Piltdown, Fletching (Sussex). Q.J.G.S.I., lxix. (1913), 117-51.

Déchelette, J.: Manuel d’archéologie. Paris (1908-14).

Deniker, J.: The Races of Man. London (1900).

Dennis, G.: The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria. 3rd. Ed. London (1883).

Dionysius Halicarnensis. _Antiquitatum Romanorum._

Dörpfeld, W.: Troja und Ilion. Athens (1902).

Douglas, Robert K.: China. London (1899).

Duckworth, W. H. L.: The problem of the Galley Hill skeleton, in Essays and Studies presented to William Ridgeway. Cambridge (1913).

Dussaud, R.: Les civilisations préhelleniques dans le basin de la mer Egée. Paris (1910), 2nd Ed. (1914).

Ersch, J. S., and Grüber, J. C.: Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften, &c. Leipzig (1840).

Evans, J.: Ancient Stone Implements. 2nd Ed., London (1897).

Fergusson, James: Rude Stone Monuments. London (1872).

Fick, A.: Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Indo-germanischen Sprachen. Göttingen (1868).

Fleure, H. J.: Human Geography in Western Europe. London (1918). =1=.

Fleure, H. J.: The racial history of the British people. G.R., v. (1918). =2=.

Fleure, H. J.: Some early neanthropic types in Europe and their modern representatives. J.R.A.I., i. (1920), 12-40.

Fleure, H. J.: The Peoples of Europe. London (1922).

Fleure, H. J., and James, T. C.: The geographical distribution of anthropological types in Wales. J.R.A.I., xlvi. (1916), 35-153.

Gardiner, Alan H.: The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage, from a hieratic papyrus in Leiden. Leipzig (1909).

Gardiner, Alan H.: New literary works from ancient Egypt. J.E.A., i. London (1914), 20-36, 100-6.

Geer, Baron de: Om Skandinaviens Geografiska Utreckling. S.H.P.E. Stockholm (1896).

Geer, Baron de: Die Veranderungen des Klimas, and A geochronology of the last 12,000 years. C.G.I., 11th sess. Stockholm, 1910. Stockholm (1912).

Giles, P.: Articles in Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th Ed. _Aryan_ in vol. ii., _Indo-European_ languages in vol. xiv. London (1910, 1).

Giles. P.: The Aryans, in Cambridge History of India, ch. iii., 65-76. Cambridge (1922).

Giuffrida-Ruggeri, V.; Antropologia e archeologia in taluni riguardi della preistoria Europea. A.A. & E., xlvi. (1916).

Giuffrida-Ruggeri, V.: The hybrid origin of the Mediterraneans. Man., xxi. (1921), 107.

Gobineau, A. de: Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines. Paris (1853-5).

Gowland, W.: The early metallurgy of copper, tin and iron in Europe. Arch., lvi. (1899).

Gowland, W.: The metals in antiquity. J.R.A.I., xlii. (1912), 235-87.

Grant, Madison: The Passing of the Great Race. New York. 1st Ed. (1916), 4th revised Ed. (1921).

Grey, J., and Tocher, J. F.: J.R.A.I., xxx. (1900).

Hall, H. R., The Ancient History of the Near East. London (1913).

Hall, H. R.: in P.S.A. 2nd ser., xxxii. (1920) 22-44.

Hampel, J.: Trouvailles de l’age de bronze en Hongrie. Buda-Pest (1886).

Harrison, J. E.: Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. 2nd Ed. Cambridge (1908).

Hartland, E. S.: Primitive Society. London (1921).

Hawes, C. H., and H. B.: Crete, the Forerunner of Greece. London and New York (1909).

Heger, F.: Ausgrabungen und Forschungen auf Fundplatzen aus vorhistorischer und römischer Zeit bei Amstetten in Niederösterreich. M.P.K.K.A.W. Wien (1903).

Hehn, V.: Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere. Berlin (1874).

Hildburgh, W. L.: Notes on some pottery objects and on an Iberian dagger with engraved handle. Man. xxii. =52=. (1922).

Holmes, T. Rice: Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Cæsar. Oxford (1907).

Hoops, J.: Waldbäumer und Kulturpflanzen im germanischen Altertum. Strasburg (1904).

Hoops, J.: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. Strasburg (1911-19).

Hooton, E. A.: The Mundus, the Palatine and the Terramara. R.E.S., iv. (1913), 238-47.

Hrozný, F.: Die Sprache der Hethiter, ihr Bau und ihre fügehörigkeit zum indo-germanischen Sprachstamm. Leipzig (1917).

Huntington, Ellsworth: The Pulse of Asia. Boston (1907).

Huntington, Ellsworth: Palestine and its transformations. London (1911).

James, W.: The Varieties of Religious Experience. London (1902).

Jastrow, Morris, junr.: Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and Assyria. New York (1911).

Johansen, K. Früs: Une station du plus ancien âge de la pierre dans la toubière de Svaedborg M.A.N. (nouvelle serie). Copenhagen (1918-9).

Jones, J. Morris: Pre-Aryan syntax in insular Celtic. App. B. in Rhys and Brynmor-Jones (1900).

Jones, Sir William: The third anniversary discourse delivered 2nd February, 1786, by the President. A.R., i., 415-31. Calcutta (1788).

Jubainville, H. Arboïs de: Les Celtes depuis les temps les plus anciens jusque a l’an 100 avant notre ère. Paris (1904).

Karo, G.: Archäologische Funde im Jahre 1915, Griechenland. In A.A., 138-166 in Jarbuch des K.D.A.I., xxi. (1916).

Keane, A. H.: The World’s Peoples. London (1908).

Keith, Arthur: The Antiquity of Man. London (1915). =1=.

Keith, Arthur: The bronze age invaders of Britain. J.R.A.I., xlvi. (1915). =2=.

Keller, F.: The Lake-dwellings of Switzerland. Trans. J.E. Lee. London (1866).

Kiepert, H.: Atlas antiquus. 7th Ed. Berlin (1882).

King, L. W.: A History of Sumer and Akkad. London (1910).

King, L. W.: A History of Babylon. London (1915).

Klaproth, J. von: Asia Polyglotta. 1st Ed. (1823), 2nd Ed. Paris (1831).

Kovalevsky, M.: Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia. London (1891).

Lacouperie, A. E. J. B. Terrien de: Languages of China before the Chinese. London (1887).

Lacouperie, A. E. J. B. Terrien de: Western Origin of Early Chinese Civilisation. London (1894).

Lane-Fox, Col. A.: remarks on a paper by H. Westropp, “cromlechs and megalithic structures.” J.E.S. (new ser.), i. (1869), 53-67.

Langdon, S.: Sumerian origins and racial characteristics. Arch., lxx. (1920), 154-54.

Lapouge, G. Vacher de: L’Aryen, son role social. Paris (1899).

Latham, R. G.: The Germania of Tacitus, with ethnological dissertations and notes. London (1851).

Latham, R. G.: The Native Races of the Russian empire. London (1854).

Latham, R. G.: Descriptive Ethnology. London (1859).

Lavisse, E.: Histoire de France. I., i. Paris (1896).

Leaf, W.: Troy; a study of Homeric geography. London (1912).

Leaf, W.: Homer and History. London (1915).

Leeds, E. Thurlow: The dolmens and megalithic tombs of Spain and Portugal. Arch lxx. (1920), 201-32.

Leeds, E. Thurlow: Problems of megalithic architecture in the western Mediterranean. A.A.A., ix. (1922), 29-40.

Lissauer, E.: Die Typenkarte der Flach- und Randäxte &c. Z.f.E. Berlin (1904).

Loth, J.: La première apparition des Celtes dans l’ile de Bretagne et en Gaule. R.C., xxxviii. Paris (1920), 259-88.

Lovett-Cameron, M.: Old Etruria and Modern Tuscany. London (1909).

Lowe, A.: On the contents of short cists found in Aberdeenshire and neighbouring counties. P.A. & A.S.U.A. (1901-4).

Lubbock, John: Prehistoric Times. London (1865).

Macalister, R. A. S.: A History of Civilisation in Palestine. Cambridge (1912).

Macalister, R. A. S.: A Text-book of European Archæology. Cambridge (1921). =1=.

Macalister, R. A. S.: Ireland in Pre-Celtic Times. Dublin (1921). =2=.

Mackenzie, D.: Cretan palaces and the Ægean civilisation, in annuals of B.S.A., xi. (1904-5), 181-223, xii. (1905-6), 216-58, xiii. (1906-7), 423-45, xiv. (1907-8), 343-422.

Magri, E.: Ruins of a Megalithic Temple at Xeuchia, Gozo. Malta (1906).

Max-Müller, F.: Languages at the Seat of War in the East. 2nd Ed. London (1855).

Max-Müller, F.: Biographies of Words, and the Home of the Aryas. London (1888).

McDougall, W.: The Group Mind. Cambridge (1920).

M’Lennan, J. F.: Studies in Ancient History. London (1886).

Matiegka, J.: The origin and beginnings of the Czecho-Slovak people. S.R., 1919, 471-86. Washington D.C. (1921).

Meyer, E.: Ægyptische Chronologie. Abhandlung der K.P.A.W. Berlin (1904).

Meyer, Kuno: in the transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, (1895-6) 55-86.

Minns, E. H.: Scythians and Greeks. Cambridge (1913).

Modestov, B.: Introduction à l’histoire romaine. Trans. M. Delines. Paris (1907).

Moir, J. Reid: Further discoveries of humanly-fashioned flints in and beneath the Red Crag of Suffolk. P.S.E.A., iii., 389-430. Ipswich (1921).

Montelius, O.: La Civilisation Primitive en Italie. Stockholm (1895-1904).

Montelius, O.: Chronologie die ältesten Bronzezeit in Nord-Deutschland und Skandinavien. Braunschweig (1900).

Montelius, O.: Palæolithic implements found in Sweden. A.J., i. (1921), 98-104.

Morgan, J. de: Mission Scientifique en Perse. Paris (1894).

Morgan, J. de: Délégation en Perse. Memoires, vii. Récherches archéologiques. Paris (1905).

Morgan, J. de, Capitan L., and Boudy, P.: Stations préhistoriques du Sud Tunisien. In R.E.A. (1910), 105-36, 206-21, 267-86, 335-47; (1911), 217-28.

Mortillet, A. de: Distribution géographique des dolmens et des menhirs en France. R.E.A. (1901).

Mosso, A.: The Dawn of Mediterranean civilisation. London (1910).

Müller, F.: Die Grundzüge der Conjugation des Ossetischen Verbums. Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe der K.A.W., xlv. Wien (1864), 524-39.

Müller, S.: Débuts et première évolution de la civilisation du bronze en Danemark, d’après les découvertes les plus récentes. M.A.N. (1908, 9).

Munro, R.: The Lake-dwellings of Europe. London (1890).

Murray, G. Gilbert A.: The Rise of the Greek epic. Oxford (1907).

Myres, J. L.: Alpine races in Europe. G.J., xxviii. (1906).

Myres, J. L.: The Dawn of History. London (1911).

Myres, J. L.: Note on some effect of climatic pulsation in a highland region. R.B.A. Dundee, 1912. London (1913).

Naue, Julius: Die vorrömischen Schwerter. München (1903).

Newberry, P. E.: Some early connections between Egypt, Syria and Babylonia. A paper read before sect. H. of the British Association at Cardiff in 1920.

Niebuhr, B. G.: The History of Rome. Trans. Hare and Thirlwell. 3rd Ed. London (1827-42).

Nilsson, S.: The Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia. 3rd Ed. London (1868).

Nordman: Some Baltic problems. J.R.A.I., lii. (1922), 26-43.

Obermaier, H.: Beiträge zur kenntnis des Quartärs in den Pyrenäens. A.f.A., Braunschweig. N.F., iv. (1906), 299, v. (1907), 244.

Obermaier, H.: Der Mensch aller Zeiten, i. (_Der Mensch der Vortzeit_). Munich (1912).

Osborn, H. Fairfield: Men of the Old Stone Age. 3rd Ed. London (1918).

Osborn, H. Fairfield: The dawn man of Piltdown, Sussex. N.H. xxi. (1921), No. 6, 575-90.

Parkyn, E. A.: An Introduction to the Study of Prehistoric Art. London (1915).

Parsons, F. G.: Anthropological observations on German prisoners of war. J.A.R.I., xlix. (1919), 20-35.

Patroni, G.: L’origine del ‘nuraghe’ sardo e le relazioni della Sardegna con l’oriente. A. & R., xix. (1916), 211-13.

Peake, H.: The Prehistoric Roads of Leicestershire. Memorials of Old Leicestershire. London (1911).

Peake, H.: The early bronze age in the valley of the Rhone. R.E.S. Paris (1914).

Peake, H.: Racial elements concerned in the first siege of Troy. J.R.A.I., xlvi. (1916). =1=.

Peake, H.: The origin of the dolmen. Man. xvi. =68= (1916). =2=.

Peake, H.: Prehistoric roads. Arch. Camb., Oct. (1917), 346-96.

Peake, H.: The Finnic question and some Baltic problems. J.R.A.I., xlix. (1919), 181-203.

Peake, H.: The English Village; the origin and decay of its community. London (1922). =1=.

Peake, H.: The Bronze Age in Wales. Aberystwyth Studies. Jubilee volume. Aberystwyth (1922). =2=. IV. 13-19.

Peake, H. J. E., and Crawford, O. G. S. C.: An early flint factory at Thatcham, Berks. P.S.A.E. (1922). III. iv.

Peake, H. J. E., and Hooton, E. A.: Saxon grave-yard at East Shefford, Berks. J.R.A.I., xlv. (1915).

Peet, T. E.: The Stone and Bronze Ages in Italy and Sicily. Oxford (1909).

Peet, T. E.: A possible Egyptian dating for the end of the third late Minoan period. Annual of B.S.A., xviii (1911-12).

Peet, T. E.: Rough Stone Monuments and their Builders. London (1912).

Peisker, T.: The Asiatic background. C.M.H., i. Cambridge (1911), 323-59.

Penck, A., and Brückner, E.: Die Alpen im Eiszeitalter. 3 vols. Leipzig (1909).

Penka, K.: Origines Ariacæ. Wien (1883).

Penka, K.: Die Herkunft der Arier. Wien (1886).

Perry, W.: Relationship between the geographical distribution of megalithic monuments and ancient mines. M. & P.M.L. & P.S., lx. Manchester (1915).

Petrie, W. M. Flinders: Researches in Sinai. London (1906).

Petrie, W. M. Flinders: Tools and Weapons. London (1917).

Piètrement, C. A.: Les Aryas et leur première patrie. R.L.P.C. Paris and Orleans (1879).

Pott, F. A.: Indogermanischer Sprachstamm, in Ersch and Grüber (1840), II., viii. 1-112.

Pumpelly, R.: Explorations in Turkestan. Washington (1905).

Pumpelly, R.: Explorations in Turkestan. Washington (1908).

Reche, O.: Zur Anthropologie der jüngeren Steinzeit in Schlesien und Böhmen. A.f.A., N.F., Bd. vii. (1908).

Reinach, S.: L’origine des Aryens. Paris (1892).

Rhys, J.: Celtic Britain. 2nd Ed. London (1884).

Rhys, J.: The Celts and other Aryans of the P. and Q. groups. T.P.S., 1891-4. London (1894), 104-31.

Rhys, J., and Brynmor-Jones, D.: The Welsh People. London (1900).

Ridgeway, W.: The Early Age in Greece. Cambridge (1901), i.

Ripley, W. Z.: The Races of Europe. London (1900).

Rose, H. J.: On the alleged evidence for mother-right in early Greece. Folklore, xxii. London (1911), 277-91, 493.

Rose, H. J.: Mother-right in ancient Italy. Folklore, xxxi. London (1920), 93-108.

Rostovtzeff, M. M.: L’exploration archéologique de la Russie méridionale, 1921-1917. J.S. (Nouv., ser.) (1920).

Sacken, E. von: Das Grabfeld von Hallstatt. Wien (1868).

Sayce, A. H.: New light on the early history of bronze. Man. xxi. =97= (1921).

Schenk, A.: La Suisse Préhistorique. Lausanne (1912).

Schliemann, H.: Mycenae. London (1878).

Schliemann, H.: Ilios. London (1880).

Schötensack, O.: Der Unterkiefer des Homo heidelbergensis aus den Sanden von Mauer bei Heidelberg: Ein Beitrag zur Palæontologie des Menschen. Leipzig (1908).

Schrader, O.: Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte. Jena (1883).

Schrader, O.: Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples. Trans. Jevons. London (1890).

Seager, R. B.: Explorations in the Island of Mochlos. Boston and New York (1912).

Seligman, C. G.: The older palæolithic age in Egypt. J.R.A.I., li. (1921), 115-44.

Sergi G.: The Mediterranean Race. London (1901).

Sergi G.: Europa. Torino (1908).

Sieg, E. and Siegling, W.: Tocharische Sprachresten. Berlin (1921).

Siret, L.: Les Cassitérides et l’empire des Phéniciens. A., xix. (1908), xx. (1909), xxi. (1910).

Šmid, W.: Die junger Steinzeit in Krain. Carniola. Laibach (1908).

Šmid, W.: Die Bronzezeit in Krain. Carniola. Laibach (1909).

Smith, G. Elliot: The Ancient Egyptians. London (1911).

Smith, G. Elliot: Evolution of the Rock-cut Tomb and the Dolmen. In Essays and studies presented to William Ridgeway. Cambridge (1913).

Smith, G. Elliot: Migrations of Early Culture. Manchester (1915).

Smith, G. Elliot: The Evolution of the Dragon. Manchester and London (1919).

Smith, G. Elliot: The fossil man of Rhodesia. In A.M., April (1922), 454-65.

Sollas, W. J.: Ancient Hunters and their Modern Representatives. London (1911).

Splieth, W.: Inventar der Bronzealterfunde aus Schleswig-Holstein. Kiel and Leipzig (1900).

Sterjna, Knut: Les groupes de civilisation en Scandinavie à l’époque des sépultures à galerie. A. xxi. (1910).

Stern, E. von: Die “Prämykenische” Kultur in Süd-Russland. In Trans. of the 12th (Kharkov) Congress of Russian archæologists. Vol. i. Moscow (1906).

Szombathy, J.: Altertumsfunde aus Höhlen bei St. Kanzian im Österreichischen Küstenlande. M.P.K.K.A.W., II., ii., 127-90. Wien (1913).

Taylor, I.: Etruscan Researches. London (1874).

Taylor, I.: The Origin of the Aryans. London (1889).

Testut, L.: Récherches anthropologiques sur le squelette quaternaire de Chancelade (Dordogne). B.S.A.L., viii. (1889).

Tomaschek, W.: Die alten Thraker. Eine ethnologische Untersuchung. Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe der K.A.W. 131. Wien (1894).

Tröltsch, E. F. von: Fund-statistik der vorrömischen Metallzeit im Rheingebiete. Stuttgart (1884).

Truhelka, C.: Der vorgeschichtliche Pfahlbau im Savebette bei Donja Dolina. W.M.B.H., Bd. ix. Wien (1904).

Tylor, E. B.: On the origin of the plough, and wheel-carriage. J.A.I., x. London (1881), 74-82.

Ure, P. N.: The Origin of Tyranny. Cambridge (1922).

Vigfussen, G., and Powell, F. Y.: _Corpus poeticum boreale._ 2 vols. Oxford (1883), i., 234-42. The lay of Righ.

Virchow, R.: Altrojanische Gräber und Schädel. Abhandlungen der K.P.A.W. Berlin (1882).

Vorgeschichliche Altertümer aus Finland. Helsingfors (1900).

Wace, A. J. B., and Thompson, M. S.: Prehistoric Thessaly. Cambridge (1912).

Wace, A. J. B.: Cambridge Companion to Greek Studies. Cambridge (1916).

Wace, A. J. B.: Excavations at Mycenæ. T.L.S., 24th June (1920), 398.

Warren, S. Hazzledine: Excavations at the stone-axe factory of Graig Llwyd, Penmaenmawr. J.R.A.I., li., 165-99. London (1921).

Wells, H. G.: Anticipations. London (1902).

Wells, H. G.: Tono-Bungay. London (1909).

Woodward, A. Smith: The problem of the Rhodesian fossil man. S.P., April (1922), 574-7.

Zaborowski, M.: Du Dniestre à la Caspienne. Esquisse palethnologique. B.S.A.P. (1895).

Zammit, T.: The Hal-saflieni prehistoric hypogeum at Casal Paula, Malta. Malta (1910).

Zammit, T.: The Hal-Tarxien neolithic temple. Arch. lxvii. (1916), 127-44; lxviii. (1917); lxx. 179-200.

Zimmer, H.: Auf welchen Wege kamen die Goidelen vom Kontinent nach Irland? Abhandlung iii. K.P.A.W. Philosophisch-Historische Classe. Berlin (1912).

INDEX

Abas, 175.

Abercromby, Lord, 77, 79, 102, 103.

Aberdeenshire, 79.

Aborigines, 150-152.

Abraham, 140.

Achæans, 104-107, 109-115, 129, 147, 161, 173-176.

Acrisius, 107, 175.

Adriatic sea, 55, 83, 88, 122, 127, 128, 159, 160, 163.

Ægean region, 34, 83-85.

Ægean sea, 40, 109, 127, 158.

Ægean traders, 80, 82, 100, 126.

Ægeus, 107.

Ægisthus, 175.

Ægyptus, 174.

Æqui, 148, 149.

Æschylus, 112.

Afghanistan, 158.

Africa, 21-23, 27-29, 33.

Agamemnon, 175.

Agaue, 175.

Agenor, 174.

Agram, 15.

Akkad, 41.

Ala-tau mountains, 138.

Albanian language, 147.

Alcæus, 175.

Alcmene, 175.

Alerona, 95.

Alexandria, 55, 114, 139.

Algeria, 21, 22, 25, 29, 78.

All Cannings Cross, 102, 130, 164.

Alpine race, 30, 33, 56, 61, 62, 64, 66, 68, 75, 79, 81, 82, 101, 106, 108-110, 112, 113, 125-128, 135, 136, 145, 146, 154, 158, 159, 164.

Alpine zone, 15, 17, 18, 61, 62.

Alps, 15, 18, 124, 148, 151, 164.

Alt-Bydzow, 119.

amber, 45, 49, 50, 53, 60, 76, 83, 128.

Ambigatus, 169.

America, 56.

Amiternum, 151, 152, 163.

Amphitryon, 106, 175.

Anatolia, 75, 108, 113, 158, _see_ Asia Minor.

Anatolian plateau, 30, 127.

Anatolian type, 75.

Anau, 39, 73, 74, 139, 157.

Anchinoë, 174.

Ancona, 93, 160.

Andalusia, 55, 77, 78.

Andamanese, 155.

Andrasfalva, 119.

Annecy, 62.

antimony, 40.

Apennines, 96, 122, 128, 131, 151, 152, 160, 163.

Apulia, 28, 95, 149.

Aquæ Sextiæ, 165.

Aquitaine, 161.

Arabian desert, 72, 73, 117.

Aral sea, 142.

Aralo-Caspian basin, 72.

Arameans, 117.

Arctic Circle, 157.

Arctic culture, 31, 160.

Arctic ocean, 72.

Ardudwy, 55.

Ares, 106, 114, 160, 174, 175.

Arezzo, 95.

Argolid, 109, 174.

Ariadne, 106.

Armenia, 39, 42, 75, 158.

Armenian highlands, 29, 30, 61, 142, 158.

Armenian language, 160.

Armenians, 75.

Armenoid type, 75.

Aryan cart, 137.

Aryan cradle, 137-139, 144, 153.

Aryan hypothesis, 132, 133, 135, 144.

Aryan languages, 29, 79, 133, 134; _see_ Wiro languages.

Aryan race, 134, 137, 138, 153.

Aryans, 134, 136, 139; _see_ Wiros.

Aryas, 133, 158.

Ascoli Piceno, 93, 128, 149, 151.

Ashby-de-la-Zouch, 46.

Asia, 22, 39, 42, 54, 64, 67, 71, 112, 118, 129, 138, 144, 154.

Asia Minor, 39, 57, 59, 62, 64, 73, 75, 108, 113, 115, 125, 126, 129, 141, 147, 158, 160, 163, 165; _see_ Anatolia.

Assur, 41.

Asturias, 55.

Athena, 175.

Athens, 55, 82, 147.

Atlantic coast, 59.

Atreidæ, 112.

Audi flints, 20-22.

Aulus Plautius, 167.

Aurignac culture, 21, 23, 25, 27.

Aurignac people, 157.

Aurignac period, 24, 28, 69, 140, 141.

Aussee, 95.

Australians, 155.

Austria, 98, 118.

Austria, lower, 94, 97.

Austria, upper, 95.

Austro-Hungary, 99.

Auvernier, 97.

Avesta, 158.

Avon, 45.

Azilian culture, 28, 31, 32.

Azilian period, 27, 29, 33, 141, 143.

Babylon, 58.

Babylonian Empire, 42.

Babylonians, 42, 59, 60.

Bacchæ, 175.

Bachofen, 173.

Bak tribes, 74.

Bala cleft, 129, 161.

Bala lake, 46.

Balkan mountains, 127.

Balkan peninsula, 113, 129.

Balkh, 75, 157.

Baltic languages, 157, 160.

Baltic region, 17, 32, 33, 46, 50, 51, 54, 60, 78, 93, 115, 160.

Baltic sea, 45, 47, 76, 77, 83, 114, 126, 128, 157, 165.

Baranza county, 94.

Bardon Hill, 46.

Bari, 55.

Barma Grande, 24, 25.

Basque language, 17.

Batia, 151, 160.

Battina, 94.

Batum, 118.

Bavaria, 30.

beads, 37, 38, 45, 52.

beakers, 100, 127.

Beaker-folk, 66, 68, 77-80, 102, 127, 158.

Békés county, 95.

Belfort gap, 129, 161.

Belgæ, 165, 166.

Belgium, 30, 76, 126, 130, 131, 165.

Bellovesus, 169.

Belus, 174.

Benfey, 138.

Bengal, 132, 137.

Bengalese, 134.

Berber languages, 29.

Bereg county, 95.

Berosus, 60.

Bevere Island, 45.

Beyrut, 38.

Bituriges, 169.

Black Sea, 138, 141; _see_ Euxine Sea.

Bœotia, 96, 109, 174.

Bogdanov, 68, 69, 156.

Boghaz Keui, 58, 59.

Bohemia, 77-79, 97, 100, 119, 120, 127, 158.

Bologna, 57, 123, 131.

Bondo, 85.

Bononia, 163.

Bopp, F., 132, 133.

Bosnia, 68, 98, 122, 128, 159, 160, 163.

Bourget, 62.

Brandenburg, 93, 94.

Breasted, Prof. J. H., 38, 171.

Brenner Pass, 77, 98.

Brennius, 169.

Brent, 130.

Breslau, 64, 75, 139.

Briges, 112, 115, 129, 160.

Britain, 17, 26, 28-30, 32, 33, 44, 45, 49, 50, 52, 60, 66, 79, 80, 91, 93, 94, 96, 98-100, 103, 116, 125, 127, 129-131, 147, 158, 161, 162, 166, 168.

British Empire, 107.

Britons, 82, 169.

Brittany, 15, 41, 43, 44, 46, 52, 54, 60, 78, 116, 130, 136, 144, 161, 165.

Broadway, 45.

Broken Hill, 21.

Brooks, C. E. P., 72, 171.

Brünn, 24, 25, 69, 140, 155.

Brüx, 24, 140, 155.

Brythonic language, 144, 145, 167.

Brythons, 16, 162; _see_ Cymri.

Buda-Pest, 88, 92, 94, 95.

Buddhists, 37.

Bühl advance, 27, 171.

Bukovina, 129.

Burgundy, 99.

Bürkanow, 95.

Burton-on-Trent, 46.

Butta, 119.

Cadmeian fox, 106.

Cadmeians, 174.

Cadmus, 109, 174, 175.

Cæsar, Julius, 15, 17, 148, 167.

Caicus, 73.

Calabria, 93.

Cambridge, 92.

Campignian culture, 33.

Capsian culture, 22, 29.

Capsian people, 27.

Caractacus, 167.

Carcassone gap, 52.

Cardiff, 130, 167.

Cardiganshire, 55.

Caria, 73.

Carinthia, 122.

Carniola, 62, 94, 95.

Carolingian monarch, 107.

Carpathian Mountains, 18, 40, 64, 76, 120, 127, 139, 143, 157, 159.

Caspian Sea, 71, 74, 75, 141, 142.

Caspio-Aral sea, 142.

Casson, S., 147.

Castellucio, 53, 54.

caste system, 82.

Castions di Strada, 92.

Caucasus, 59, 118, 120, 121, 129, 147, 161.

Celts, 17, 132, 133, 161, 164, 169.

Celtic cradle, 18, 29, 61, 81, 88, 99, 104, 119, 120, 128, 146, 147, 159, 161, 169.

Celtic Empire, 169.

Celtic lands, 17, 19, 20, 22, 25-31, 33, 47, 60, 61, 98, 99, 104, 131, 146, 148, 153, 168, 169.

Celtic languages, 15-17, 29, 60, 61, 132, 133, 144-146, 159, 163, 164.

Celtic people, 18, 168.

Celtic place-names, 17.

Celtic race, 17.

Celtic scholars, 145, 168.

Centaurs, 75, 158.

Central Europe, _see_ Europe, central.

Cercyon, 106.

Chalybes, 118, 161.

Chamberlain, Houston, 136.

Chamblandes, 141.

Chancelade skull, 23, 27, 28.

Chantre, R., 118.

Chapelle-aux-Saints, 21.

Chelles implements, 19.

Cher, 99.

Chernigov, 64.

Chester, 46.

Chiano, 95.

Chichester, 45.

China, 74.

Chinese script, 74.

Christianity, 49.

Christians, 37.

Chvojka, M., 66.

Cilicia, 40, 174.

Cilix, 174.

Cimbri, 162, 165.

Cimbric Chersonese, 162, 165.

Cimmerians, 162.

Cirencester, 45.

Cividale, 93, 122, 131.

Clark, Col. E. Kitson, 46.

Clyde, Firth of, 46.

Clytemnestra, 175.

Cnossos, 65, 170, 174.

Combe Capelle, 24-28, 30, 33, 61, 63, 67, 69, 140, 155.

Comœtho, 106.

Constantine, 21.

Conway, Prof. R. S., 148, 149.

Cook, O. F., 72.

copper, 36, 38-44, 47, 49, 50, 60, 65, 80, 82, 83, 85, 100, 108, 126, 127.

Cordier, H., 74.

Cornwall, 15, 55, 144.

Corwen, 46.

Cotswold Hills, 45, 51.

Cracow, 15, 64.

crannogs, 166.

Crawford, O. G. S., 32, 45, 46, 101, 102, 125, 153.

Cretans, 108, 109.

Crete, 40-42, 65, 85, 96, 108, 109, 174.

Crimea, 59.

Croatia, 159, 163.

Cromagnon race, 23-29.

Cromyon sow, 106.

Cuno, J. G., 138, 140, 153.

Cwm Bychan, 46.

Cyclades, 42.

Cymri, 16, 162, 167; _see_ Brythons.

Cymric language, 144, 167.

Cyprus, 42, 43, 85, 96.

Dacian language, 147.

Damascus, 38.

Damastes, 106.

Damocles, 110.

Danaans, 174.

Danaë, 175.

Danaus, 109, 174.

Dani-glacial line, 171.

Danube, 30, 40, 75, 76, 82, 83, 88, 92, 94, 95, 99, 105-107, 113, 115, 119, 121, 127, 129, 130, 147, 163, 164.

Daun stadium, 171.

Dead Sea, 71.

Déchelette, J., 90, 99, 102, 125, 169.

Dee, 45.

Delta, the, 38, 40, 96, 114.

Denise, 24.

Denmark, 44-46, 51, 78, 93, 94, 96, 97, 128, 130.

Dernazacco, 122.

Deverel-Rimbury, 102.

Devon, 55.

Dexheim, 120.

Dhimini ware, 75, 158.

Diarbekir, 42.

Dinaric race, 108.

Dintorni del Fucino, 95.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 150-152.

Dionysus, 175.

Dnieper, 64, 67, 68, 74, 126, 140, 154.

Dniester, 64.

Dodona, 113, 161.

dolmens, 48-51, 53-55, 58, 59.

Donja-Dolina, 98.

Dordogne, 21, 25, 27, 28, 69.

Dorian invasion, 105, 121, 129, 147, 163.

Dorians, 147, 152, 169, 173.

Douglas, Sir Robert, 74.

Dover, Straits of, 79.

Dowris, 116.

Drave, 122, 130, 159.

Drenthe, 79.

Dublin, 44-46, 98, 99.

Dunkirk, 136.

Eastbourne, 166.

East Scandinavian culture, 32.

East Spanish art, 27.

Ebnal, 45.

Egger, Dr. S., 92.

Egypt, 22, 29, 36, 39, 48, 49, 54, 65, 73, 85, 96, 100, 108, 115, 140, 161, 170, 171, 174.

Egyptians, 29, 40.

Elamite culture, 73.

Elamites, 74.

El Argar, 43.

Elbe, 68, 79, 83.

Electryon, 175.

Elliott, Smith Prof. G., 36, 37, 54.

Endrod, 95.

England, 17, 26, 46, 49, 79, 97, 98, 102, 103, 129, 132, 138, 164, 166-168.

English language, 29.

eoliths, 19.

épingles à raquette, 119.

Epirus, 113.

Erinyes, 175.

Erse language, 17.

Erzeroum, 42.

Erzgebirge, 83.

Eskimos, 27.

Este, 122.

Ethiopic race, 28.

Etruria, 58, 59, 122, 123, 131, 148, 149, 163, 164.

Etruria Circumpadana, 122.

Etruscan language, 60.

Etruscans, 57, 58, 114, 124, 131, 149, 176.

Etruscan tombs, 56, 59.

Eumenides, 175.

Euripides, 175.

Europe, central, 15, 23, 25, 28-30, 37, 40, 45, 61, 83, 84, 87, 98, 99, 101-103, 106, 115, 116, 119, 125, 128, 145, 146, 152, 153.

Europa, 174.

Eurytion, 107.

Euxine Sea, 65, 75, 83, 118, 127, 142, 158; _see_ Black Sea.

Evans, Sir Arthur, 77.

Evesham, 45.

_ex oriente lux_, 137.

Falisci, 149.

Fationovo culture, 126.

Fejér, 97.

Felsina, 163, 164.

Fenno-Scandian moraines, 171.

Fens, 46, 97.

Fergusson, James, 50.

Fick, A., 138.

Ficulle, 95.

Fiesole, 58.

finger-tip ware, 102, 103.

Finistère, 51.

Finland, 99, 100, 125, 130, 164.

Finns, 126.

First Cataract, 22.

Fiume, 83, 127, 128.

Fleure, Prof. H. J., 28, 55-57, 155.

Flinders Petrie, Prof. W. M., 40, 171.

Florence, 56.

Forth, Firth of, 46.

Foxhall, 19, 170.

France, 26, 27, 30, 33, 35, 46, 50, 51, 62, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 125, 129-132, 136, 138, 145, 147, 153; _see_ Gaul.

Franks, 134, 176.

Frassineto, 95.

Frazer, Sir James, 175.

French, 119, 133.

Frisia, 165.

Fritzen, 120.

Friuli, 88, 92, 93, 122, 128, 131, 159, 163.

Fucino, 116; _see_ Lake Fucino.

Furfooz, 30, 126.

Gaelic Empire, 169.

Gaelic language, 68, 144; _see_ Goidelic.

Gaels, 16, 164-169; _see_ Goidels.

Galati, 165.

Galatians, 165.

Galicia, 65, 66, 77, 79, 95, 120, 127, 129, 139, 158, 161.

Galley-hill skeleton, 19.

Galli, 165; _see_ Gauls.

Gallipoli peninsula, 75, 158.

Galloway, Mull of, 46.

Gata, 119.

Gaul, 17, 134, 161, 162, 164, 165, 167; _see_ France.

Gaul, Cis-Alpine, 17.

Gaulish language, 29.

Gauls, 148; _see_ Galli.

Gaya, 119.

Geer, Baron de, 171.

Geiger, L., 138.

Gelderland, 79.

Geneva, 62.

Geoffrey of Monmouth, 169.

German language, 132, 133.

Germany, 25, 44, 78, 93, 94, 96-99, 125, 132, 133, 136, 138, 144.

Germans, 119, 136.

Gibraltar woman, 21.

Giles, Dr. Peter, 133, 139-143.

Giza, 54.

Gladstone, Dr., 40.

Glamorgan, 55, 168.

Glasinatz, 122.

Glastonbury, 166.

Goidelic language, 80, 144, 145, 165, 168; _see_ Gaelic.

Goidels, 16; _see_ Gaels.

gold, 36-40, 43, 44, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 56, 60, 84, 108, 161.

Gömör county, 95.

Gorgophane, 175.

Gorodak, 97.

Goti-glacial moraines, 171.

Gournia, 108.

Gowland, Prof. W., 118.

Gozo, 48.

Graig Llwyd, 35, 39.

Grand-Pressigny, La, 35, 39.

Grant, Madison, 135.

Greece, 65, 85, 97, 99, 104-107, 109, 110, 114, 116, 121, 129, 131, 146, 147, 163, 173, 175.

Greek colonies, 163.

Greek lands, 85, 104-106, 109, 115, 146, 147, 152.

Greek language, 132, 145, 146, 148.

Greek literature, 137.

Greek merchants, 52, 56.

Greeks, 112, 129.

Grenelle, 24, 30.

Grimaldi race, 23-25, 28, 29, 33, 37.

Grisons, 85.

Gross-Steffelsdorf, 95.

Gross-Tschernitz, 97.

Grotte des enfants, 23, 24, 37.

Grübegg, 95, 97.

Guernsey, 78.

Gyalar, 121, 129.

Gyula-fehérvar, 96.

Haghia-Triada, 65.

Hajdu county, 94.

Hajdu-böszörmény, 94, 97.

Hall, Dr. H. R., 39, 106, 171, 172.

Hallstatt, 81, 87, 91, 92, 98, 101, 105, 115, 116, 118, 119, 130, 154, 162, 165.

Hal-Tarxien, 52-54.

Halys, 58.

Hammurabi, 74, 142, 157.

Hanover, 136.

Harlech, 46.

Harmonia, 174.

Hartland, Dr. S., 173, 175.

Hawes, Mrs., 73.

Hehn, V., 137.

Heidelberg, 19.

Hellespont, 73, 115, 127, 158, 160.

Hengistbury Head, 166.

hepatoscopy, 58.

Hera, 106.

Heracles, 106.

Heraclids, 121.

Hernici, 148, 149.

Herodotus, 105, 142, 145-148, 161, 162.

Herzegovina, 97, 128, 159.

Hesse, Rhenish, 120.

Hesse-Darmstadt, 120.

Himalayan _massif_, 29, 137.

Himella, 160.

Hindu Kush, 29, 137, 139, 157.

Hippocrates, 145-147.

Hissarlik, 42, 73.

Hissarlik II., 43, 54, 66, 68, 73, 75, 78, 82, 83, 127, 158.

Hissarlik III., 75.

Hissarlik VI., 66.

Hittite language, 144.

Hittites, 58, 76, 127, 158.

Holderness, 32.

Holland, 50, 127, 158, 165.

Holmes, T. Rice, 80.

Homer, 105, 146.

Homeric heroes, 113.

Hooton, Dr. E. A., 122.

Hubert, M., 153.

Hungarian plain, 62-64, 76, 81, 88, 117, 120, 128, 139, 141, 142, 159.

Hungary, 63, 64, 76, 81, 83-86, 88, 92-96, 99, 117, 119-121, 127-129, 141, 158.

Huns, 72.

Huntington, Ellsworth, 71, 72, 142.

Hypermnestra, 174.

Iapygian race, 28.

Iberian peninsula, 52, 53, 100, 131.

ice age, 141.

Iliad, 105, 106, 112, 113.

India, 59, 82, 137, 141.

Indian dialects, 133.

Indo-European language, 79, 133.

Indo-Germanic language, 133.

Indo-Iranian languages, 158.

Indre, 99.

Indre-et-Loire, 35.

Iona, 49.

Ionic dialect, 145, 146.

Ipswich skeleton, 19.

Iranian languages, 146, 158, 161.

Iranian plateau, 74, 127, 142, 157, 158.

Iranians, 163.

Ireland, 15, 17, 28, 30, 32, 44, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 60, 79, 98-100, 129, 130, 137, 144, 161, 166-169.

Irish gold fields, 44-46.

Irish language, 29.

Irishmen, 21.

Iron Gates, 18.

iron swords, 117, 125, 129, 130, 152, 154, 163.

iron sword people, 131, 147, 152.

Islam, 72.

Isle of Arran, 78.

Isle of Man, 15, 144.

Isonzo, 122, 131.

Israelites, 53.

Italians, 133.

Italic languages, 146, 159.

Italy, 15, 17, 35, 37, 44, 57, 58, 77, 78, 83-85, 94, 95, 97-99, 109, 119, 122, 127-129, 131, 145-148, 152, 162, 163, 168.

James, William, 110.

Jastrow, Morris, 58.

Jaxartes, 137.

Jones, Sir John Morris, 29.

Jones, Sir William, 132.

Joshua, 53.

Jubainville, H. Arbois de, 169.

Jura mountains, 18.

Jutland, 79, 80, 100, 127, 158, 159, 162, 164, 165.

Kabyles, 29.

Kaptara, 41, 42.

Kassites, 74, 75, 127, 142, 157, 158.

Keith, Sir Arthur, 66, 77, 101.

Kennet, 45.

Khalepje, 72.

Khasakhemui, King, 40.

Khatti, 76; _see_ Hittites.

Khorazan, 42.

Kief, 64, 76.

Kiepert, 149.

Kimri, 162-165, 167-169.

Kis-köszey, 94.

Klaproth, J. von, 133.

Knutsford, 46.

Koban river, 67, 118-120, 129-131, 161, 162.

Koban people, 119, 121, 147, 162.

Kopet Dagh, 29.

Koszylowsce, 65.

Krensdorf, 119.

Ku-Ki, 41, 42.

Kuno-Meyer, Prof., 168.

Kurgan-people, 67.

Kursk, 68, 156.

Lacouperie, Terrien de, 74.

Lafaye Bruniquel, 25.

Laibach, 62, 76.

Lake-dwellings, 37, 62, 81, 97, 125, 126, 130, 159, 160, 164-166.

Lake Avernus, 162.

Lake Balaton, 95, 97; _see_ Plattensee.

Lake Balkash, 138.

Lake Beshika, 62.

Lake Fucino, 95, 96, 128, 146, 151, 160.

Lake Neuchâtel, 97.

Lake Ragunda, 171.

Lake Superior, 38.

Lake Trasimene, 94-96, 128, 131, 149-151, 160.

La Madeleine, 26, 27.

Lane-Fox, Col. A., 50.

Laomedon, 111.

La Tène, 165, 166.

Latham, Dr. R. G., 138, 153.

Latini, 148, 149.

Latin language, 15, 132, 145, 148, 151, 160, 163, 164.

Latin peoples, 151, 160, 163.

Latin races, 132, 133.

Latium, 148, 163.

Laufen retreat, 20.

Laugerie Basse, 24.

Lautsch, 24.

La Vendée, 165.

leaf-shaped swords, 85, 86, 88, 90, 92, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 109, 111, 126, 128, 149, 151, 153, 159.

ditto Type A, 87, 89, 92, 94, 115-117, 159. ditto Type B, 89, 93, 115-117, 128, 149, 159, 165. ditto Type C, 89, 90, 93-95, 116, 128, 149. ditto Type D, 89, 90, 93-98, 103, 114, 117, 149. ditto Type E, 90, 95, 96, 98, 101, 103, 116, 117, 120. ditto Type F, 90, 91, 97, 98, 116, 117, 121. ditto Type G, 87, 90, 91, 98, 101-103, 115-117, 126, 152, 164.

leaf-shaped sword people, 122, 146, 149-152.

Leeds, E. Thurlow, 53, 77.

Leicestershire, 46.

Lemberg, 64.

Le Moustier industry, 20, 21.

Les Eyzies, 21, 23.

Levadia, 96.

Levantine trade, 43.

Libya, 174.

Libyans, 114.

linguistic palæontology, 135, 138-140.

Linz, 83, 95.

Lipari islands, 34.

Lissauer, 119.

Liste, 151.

Lithuanian language, 157.

Liverpool, 46, 55.

Livy, 169.

Llanarmon-dyffryn-Ceiriog, 45.

Llyn Fawr, 101.

Loire, 152, 164, 169.

London, 51, 92, 164.

Lot, 99.

Loth, J., 80.

Lucumons, 58.

Luxor, 22.

Lycophron, 162.

Lydia, 73.

Lynceus, 174.

Lyons, 127.

Macalister, R. A. S., 166.

Macclesfield, 46.

Macedonia, 114, 115, 160.

Magdalenian culture, 31.

Magdalenian period, 25, 27, 29, 34, 141, 143, 155, 171.

Maglemose, 31, 32.

Magyarorozag, 95, 96.

Maikop, 67.

Malta, 35, 44, 48, 52, 54, 60, 78.

Mannersdorf, 95.

Marathon bull, 106.

Marius, 165.

Marruvium, 151.

Marsi, 148, 149.

Marx, Karl, 62.

mastaba, 48, 54, 59.

Mauer sand-pit, 19.

Mawddach, 46.

Max-Müller, Prof. F., 133, 134, 138.

McDougall, W., 155.

Meare, 166.

Mecklenburg, 94.

Mediterranean coast, 22, 51.

Mediterranean race, 28, 29, 33, 56, 69, 84, 108-110, 112, 113, 135, 136, 154-156.

Mediterranean regions, 35, 42, 59, 85, 99, 107.

Mediterranean sea, 25, 35, 41, 42, 45, 60, 83, 108, 127.

megalithic monuments, 48-52, 54, 56, 59, 60, 77, 78.

Melanesian society, 176.

Melos, 34, 40.

Menelaus, 112.

Mentone, 23, 25.

Merneptah, 114.

Mernere, 39.

Mersey, 46.

Meryey, 114.

Mesopotamia, 38, 59, 60, 73, 74, 85, 127, 142, 158, 171, 172.

metal, discovery of, 36.

Meuse, 130, 165.

Meyer, Dr. E., 171.

Midas, 158.

Midi, 165.

Midland plain, 47, 161, 167.

Mihovo, 95.

Milpa culture, 72.

Minns, E., 72, 76.

Minoan age, 109, 111.

Minoan culture, 100, 161.

Minoan period, early, 65, 108.

Minoan period, middle, 73, 108, 109.

Minoan period, late, 108, 109, 114, 174.

Minos, 174.

Minutsinsk, 127.

Mitanni, 75, 158.

Mochlos, 108.

Moguer, 55.

Monaco, Prince of, 23.

Mongoloid race, 32, 33, 68, 126, 160.

Mongols, 163.

Monteracello, 44.

Morava, 121, 159.

Moravia, 119.

Moravian gate, 64, 120, 127, 129, 158, 161.

Moray Frith, 79.

Morbihan, bay of, 43, 51, 165, 166.

Morgan, J. de, 58.

Morimarusam, 165.

Morocco, 25.

Moscow, 156.

Moselle, 130, 165.

Moslems, 37.

Mosso, A., 65.

Motril, 55.

mountain zone, 63, 64, 66, 77, 81, 82, 88, 98, 102, 117, 125-128, 130, 131, 145, 146, 152, 159, 161, 162, 164, 169.

Mugem, 24, 25, 30.

Muliana, 96.

Mullerup, 31, 32.

Munkacs, 95.

Mur, 122.

Mycenæ, 96, 116.

Mycenean culture, 100, 129, 161.

Myres, Prof. J. L., 68.

Nagy-sap, 63.

Naples, 58, 124.

Narbonne, 51, 55.

Naue, Dr. J., 86, 93.

Neanderthal man, 20-22.

Neleids, 174.

Neleus, 109.

Neo-Celtic tongues, 29.

neolithic age, 33-35, 52, 63, 102, 125, 136, 140-142, 155, 171, 172.

Nera, 151.

Nestor, 106.

Neuchâtel, 62.

Newberry, Percy, 54.

Newbury, 45, 65.

Newquay, 55.

Nile valley, 22, 40, 48.

Nordic race, 57, 63, 64, 66, 70, 76-78, 81, 82, 85, 88, 106, 107, 109, 111-114, 125-128, 134-137, 140, 147, 153-156, 164.

Nordman, C. A., 32.

Normandy, 134.

Normandy, Duke of, 107.

Normans, 107.

Norsemen, 107.

North sea, 97.

Noutonic, 119.

Nubia, 39.

Oannes, 60.

Oban, 32.

Obercassel skulls, 25.

Obermaier, H., 20.

Obi, 72, 157.

obsidian, 34, 35, 40, 41.

Odessa, 64.

Odin, 160.

Ofnet, 24, 30, 61, 67.

Old England, 101, 130.

Old World, 85.

Ombri, 163.

Ombrice, 122.

Orchomenos, 96.

Orestes, 175.

Oreszka, 97.

Orezi, 93.

Oronsay, 32.

Orsi, P., 54.

Orviedo, 55.

Orvieto, 95.

Osco-Umbrian language, 148, 152.

Osiris, 38.

Ossetes, 161.

Oxus, 137.

P-peoples, 16.

Pæonia, 62, 160.

palæolithic period, lower, 19, 170.

ditto middle, 20, 170. ditto upper, 25, 28, 33, 69, 141, 170.

Palatine hill, 122, 151, 163, 164.

Palatium, 151, 163.

Palestine, 59, 71.

Pallantids, 106.

Palmanova, 92.

Paphlagonia, 118.

Paris, 30, 99.

Parret, 167.

Patesi, 58.

Pausanias, 173.

_pax Romana_, 169.

Peak district, 46.

Peet, Prof. E., 114, 128.

Peisker, T., 72.

Peleus, 106.

Pelopids, 112, 175.

Peloponnese, 105, 175.

Pelops, 112.

Pembrokeshire, 55.

Pencaer, 55.

Penck, A., 171.

Penka, K., 131, 136, 137, 153.

Pen-maen-mawr, 35.

Pentheus, 175.

Periphates, 106.

Perry, 45.

Perry, W., 49, 50, 52.

Perseus, 106, 175.

Persia, 39, 141.

Persian gulf, 42, 59, 60, 109.

Persians, 133.

Petrie, Prof. W. M. F., _see_ Flinders Petrie.

Petronell, 94.

Pewsey, vale of, 164.

Phœnicia, 174.

Phœnicians, 52.

Phœnix, 174.

Phrygia, 73, 112.

Phrygian language, 147, 160.

Phrygians, 113, 115, 129, 147, 158.

Pictish language, 17.

Piètrement, C. A., 138.

Pillars of Hercules, 43.

Piltdown skull, 17, 20.

Plynlimmon, 28.

Plattensee, 95, 97; _see_ Lake Balaton.

Pliny, 162.

Po, 122, 131, 148, 163.

Podhering, 95, 96.

Podolia, 97, 100, 120, 129, 161.

Poland, 31, 64.

Poltava, 64.

Polydorus, 175.

Polynesia, 49.

Polymela, 106.

Polypoites, 106.

Pomerania, 93.

Pompeii, 58, 131, 164.

Pontus, 118.

Portugal, 25, 33, 53.

Poseidon, 106, 174.

Posidonius, 162.

Pott, F. A., 137.

Povegliano, 98.

Predil Pass, 122, 128, 131, 163.

Priam, 105.

Pripet marshes, 64.

prognathism, 23.

prognathism, alveolar, 24, 25, 28.

Prospector language, 60.

Prospectors, 56-60, 79, 108-111, 114, 131, 176.

Proto-Solutrean stations, 26.

Prussia, 93, 120.

Pumpelly, Raphael, 39, 71-73.

Punjab, 137, 158.

Pylos, 109, 174.

Pyrenees, 15, 17, 25, 27, 28, 69, 78.

Q-peoples, 16.

race-making period, 155.

Rastall, R. H., 37.

Reading, 99, 130.

Reatæ, 151, 160, 163.

Reche, Dr. O., 78.

red ochre, 23, 67, 69, 74, 140.

Regulini-Galassi tomb, 57.

Rhadamanthus, 174.

Rhine, 15, 17, 63, 64, 76, 79, 97, 119, 126, 127, 129, 161, 165, 166.

Rhodesia, 21, 22.

Rhone, 83, 99, 127, 152, 164, 165.

Rhys, Sir John, 144-147, 152, 153, 162, 165.

Richmond, 164.

Ridgeway, Sir W., 104-106, 112, 113, 147, 162, 174.

Rima-Szombat, 95, 96.

Ripley, W. Z., 55, 62.

Ripuarian Franks, 176.

Rivers, Dr. W. H. R., 176.

Riviera, the, 24.

Robenhausen, 63.

Rollo, 107.

Rome, 82, 95, 122, 131, 150, 151, 163.

Roman culture, 15.

Roman Empire, 107.

Romans, 40, 168.

Rose, Prof. H. J., 173.

Rostovtzeff, M. M., 67, 119, 162.

Rostro-carinate implements, 19.

Roumania, 64.

Roumanian plain, 64.

Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 132.

Ruggeri, Prof. V. Giuffrida, 28.

rudernadln, 119.

Russia, 26, 31, 62, 64, 69, 72, 76, 81, 97, 107, 120, 126, 139, 140, 142, 153-155, 158, 159, 164.

Russo-Turkestan steppe, 141.

Sabine language, 149.

Sabine region, 149-151.

Sabines, 163, 164.

Sabini, 149, 151, 152.

Saint Barthelmä, 95.

Saint Brieuc, 55.

Saint Germain-en-Laye, 97, 98.

Saint Kanzian, 95.

Saint Margaret’s Isle, 94.

Sajo-Gömör, 94, 95.

Salerno, 55.

Salic Franks, 176.

Salisbury plain, 51.

Salonika, 62.

Salto, 151.

Salza-Bach, 97.

Sangarius, 73.

Sanskrit language, 132, 133, 137.

Santa Lucia Tolmino, 122, 131.

Santorin, 34, 35.

Saone, 99.

Sarawak, Raja of, 107.

Sardinia, 28, 52, 114.

Sardis, 163.

Sargon of Akkad, 41, 42.

Sarpedon, 174.

Save, 121, 122, 128, 130, 159, 163.

Savoy, 62, 164.

Saxons, 37, 168.

Sayce, Prof. A. H., 41, 42, 158.

Scandinavia, 52, 99, 116, 125, 131.

Scandinavian ice, 171.

Scandinavian legend, 160.

Schatze, 97.

Schleswig-Holstein, 88, 93, 94, 97, 99, 128, 159, 164.

Schliemann, H., 43, 96.

Schrader, Dr. O., 139-141, 153.

Sciron, 106.

Scotland, 15, 17, 28, 30, 32, 46, 79, 98, 144.

Scurgola, 44.

Scythians, 162.

Seine, 99, 125, 130, 131, 147, 152, 154, 164, 168.

Seistan, 59.

Seligman, Dr. C. G., 22.

Selve, 93.

Semele, 175.

Sequana, 152.

Sequani, 152, 164.

Serbia, 64, 163.

Sergi, Dr. G., 68, 155, 156.

Seti II., 96, 114, 115.

Severn, 45, 129, 161.

Shalmaneser, I., 117.

Shawiya, 29.

Shekelesh, 114.

Sherden, 114.

Shrewsbury, 45.

Shropshire, 45.

Siberia, 27, 33, 157.

Sicily, 35, 44, 60, 78, 107, 114.

Siculi, 150.

Siebenburgen, 97.

Sigmaringen, 99, 130, 163.

Sigovesus, 169.

Silesia, 78, 79, 127.

Sinaitic peninsula, 22, 36.

Sinis, 106.

Siret, 43.

Slavs, 122, 123.

Smid, Dr. W., 94.

Sollas, Prof. W. J., 171.

Solutré, 24.

Solutré culture, 27.

Solutré people, 26, 69, 157.

Solutré period, 25, 26, 140, 155.

Somogy, 93.

Souja, 68, 156.

Southampton, 45.

South Lodge Camp, 141.

Spain, 15, 17, 25, 27, 29, 41-44, 54, 60, 62, 77-79, 82, 127.

Sparta, 169.

Spercheus, 160.

Splieth, W., 93, 94.

St. Acheul implements, 19.

Stein, Sir Aurel, 71.

steppes, 64, 67-69, 71-74, 76, 81, 82, 117, 126, 138-142, 153-157, 159, 161, 169.

steppe conditions, 26, 69.

Steppe-folk, 67, 69, 71-77, 79, 82, 83, 88, 101, 106, 119, 120, 126-128, 139-141, 143, 155.

Sterjna, Dr. Knut, 51.

Strabo, 15.

Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, 22.

Styria, 95, 97, 122, 130.

Sulmona, 95, 149.

Sumer, 58, 59.

Sumerian language, 60.

Sumerians, 58, 59, 108.

Susa, 58, 73.

Sværdborg, 31, 32.

Sweden, 26, 51, 54, 164.

Swedes, 156.

Swiss lake-dwellings, 30, 76, 101, 125, 127, 145, 146, 152.

Switzerland, 30, 62, 64, 83, 98, 119, 126, 141, 164.

Syracuse, 52-54.

Syria, 38, 42, 49, 55, 59.

Szombathy, J., 95.

Tacitus, 136.

Tagus, 30, 53.

Tantalus, 112.

Taranto, 52, 55, 78, 122, 131.

Tarentum, 52, 163.

Tardenoisian culture, 28.

Tatars, 72.

Taurus Mountains, 40.

Tehenu, 114.

Telebœans, 106.

Telephassa, 174.

Tell-el-’Obeid, 39.

Tell Firaun, 96.

Teresh, 114.

Tern, 45.

Terramara-folk, 122, 131, 163.

terramare, 122, 131, 163.

Teutonic languages, 132, 157, 160.

Teutonic tribes, 15.

Teutons, 132, 133, 165.

Thames, 45, 96-99, 129, 130, 164, 167.

Thatcham, 32.

Thebes, 174.

Thersites, 113.

Theseus, 106.

Thessaly, 64, 73, 75, 121, 127, 129, 158, 160.

Thor, 160.

Thrace, 64, 68, 73, 113, 114, 121, 127, 129, 147, 158, 160, 163.

Thracians, 112, 113, 161, 175.

Thraco-Phrygian language, 147, 148, 159.

Thraco-Phrygians, 114, 115.

Tiber, 128, 149, 151, 163.

Tigris, 42, 74.

Tiryns, 97.

tin, 41, 42, 44, 47, 49, 50, 59, 60.

tin-land, 41, 42; _see_ Ku-Ki.

Tobolsk, 68, 75, 157.

Tocharian language, 144.

Tökés, 119.

Tomaschek, Dr. W., 147.

Tommassin, 92.

Transylvania, 40, 65, 82, 121, 129.

Trebizonde, 42.

Trento, 128.

Treviso, 93, 159.

Trieste, 95, 122.

Tripolje culture, 64-66, 72-74, 77, 127, 158.

Tripolje people, 73, 77, 78, 80, 82, 126, 142, 156.

Tripolje region, 73, 75, 79, 127, 139, 157.

Trojan war, 105, 106.

Troy, 111.

Truentus, 160.

Tsountas, 96.

Tuaregs, 29.

Tubino, 62.

Turkestan, 26, 39, 67, 69, 71-73, 127, 142, 154, 158, 159.

Tuscany, 58, 131; _see_ Etruria.

Tyndareus, 175.

Tyrsenians, 114; _see_ Etruscans.

Udine, 92.

Ukraine, 74, 77, 80.

Ulm, 99, 130, 163.

Umbria, 148.

Umbrian dialects, 151, 164.

Umbrians, 163.

Upper sea, 41.

Ur, 39.

Ural Mountains, 138, 142.

Ure, Prof. P. N., 109, 110.

Ur, Nina, 39.

Ust Urt desert, 141, 142.

Utrecht, 79.

Vannes, 156.

Vardar, 121, 129, 160, 163.

Vedic hymns, 137, 158.

Vedic Indians, 133, 137.

Velino, 128, 131, 151, 160.

Veneti, 163, 166.

Veneto, 122, 128, 159.

Venetian language, 159.

Venice, 56, 93.

Verona, 98.

Versecz, 119.

Via Salaria, 128.

Vienna, 92-94, 122.

Vikings, 33, 113, 134.

Villa-nova culture, 57, 123, 131, 147, 152.

Villa-nova people, 57, 58, 131, 149, 162.

Visigoths, 82.

Volga, 68, 126, 154, 159.

Wace, Dr. A. J. B., 105, 107, 147.

Wadi Foakhir, 39.

Wales, 15, 17, 28, 30, 32, 33, 47, 51, 55, 79, 97, 129, 130, 144, 161, 162, 164, 167, 168.

Warrington, 46, 51.

Wash, the, 164.

Wells, H. G., 110.

Welsh language, 29.

Weser, 79, 127.

Wessex, 102, 129, 161, 164.

West Highlands, 17.

Wicklow Hills, 44, 55.

Wilburton, 97, 116.

Wiltshire, 51, 102, 130.

Wimpasting, 95.

Winchester, 45.

Winklarn, 94.

Winwick, 46.

Wiro, Wiros, 133-137, 139-144, 146, 147, 153-159, 161, 165, 168.

Wiro language, 145-147, 153, 164, 167.

Wodnian, 97.

Wollersdorf, 95, 97.

Worcester, 45.

Würm glaciation, 20, 22, 168, 171.

Wurtemberg, 119.

Yenesei River, 75, 127.

Yeshil Irmak, 118.

Yortan, 73.

Zaborowski, M., 76.

Zag-a-zig, 96.

Zavadyntse, 97, 120.

Zealand, 31.

Zemplen, 97.

Zend, 137.

Zeus, 113, 174.

Zimmer, H., 168.

Zuojuica, 97.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY HEADLEY BROTHERS, 18, DEVONSHIRE STREET, E.C.2; AND ASHFORD, KENT.

PLATES

PLATE I.

AXES FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN AND WEST EUROPE.

1 Cyprus. Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford. 1440. Cesnola Collection. 2 Cyprus. Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford. J. W. Flower. 3 Cyprus. Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford. 1440. Cesnola Collection. 4 Cyprus; Dati. City Art Gallery, Leeds. John Holmes Collection. 5 Cyprus; Nicosia. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. 6 Cyprus. Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford. 1440. Cesnola Collection. 7 Greece; Eubœa. British School of Archæology, Athens. Finlay Collection, 25. 8 Greece; Peloponnesus. British School of Archæology, Athens. Finlay Collection, 538. 10 Spain; site unknown. Collection of Capt. J. H. Ball. 11 Spain; El Argar. Siret 21. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. P.R. 200. 12 Malta; Hal-Tarxien. Valetta Museum. 13 Malta; Hal-Tarxien. Valetta Museum. 14 Malta; Hal-Tarxien. Valetta Museum. 15 Spain; El Argar. Siret 276. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. P.R. 202. 16 Spain; El Argar. Siret 605. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. P.R. 199. 17 Spain; El Argar. Siret 26. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. P.R. 201. 18 Spain; El Argar. Siret 816. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. P.R. 198. 19 England; Arreton Down, Isle of Wight. Carisbrooke Museum. 20 England; Aldershot, Hants. Collection of Capt. J. H. Ball. 21 England; Battlefield, Shropshire. Shrewsbury Museum. 22 England; Yorkshire. Site unknown. Private Collection. 23 England; Beckhampton, Wilts. Devizes Museum. 24 England; Grappenhall, Cheshire. Warrington Museum. 25 England; Fordham, Cambridgeshire. Museum of Archæology and Ethnology, Cambridge. 26 England; Banner Down, near Bath. Literary and Scientific Institute, Bath. 27 England; Fordham, Cambridgeshire. Museum of Archæology and Ethnology, Cambridge.

PLATE II.

DAGGERS FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN AND WEST EUROPE.

1 Crete. Candia Museum.

2 Crete. Candia Museum.

3 Crete; Gournia. Boyd & Hawes (1912) iv. 51.

4 Malta; Hal-Tarxien. Valetta Museum.

5 Malta; Hal-Tarxien. Valetta Museum.

6 Sicily; Monteracello. Syracuse Museum. B.P. XXIV., xxii. 7.

8 England; Throwley, Staffordshire. Sheffield Museum. Bateman Collection. J. 93. 450.

9 Ireland; Shannon, Glastonbury Museum. Co. Limerick. Braxton Collection 359.

10 England; exact site unknown. Public Library, Brentford.

11 Ireland; site unknown. Private Collection.

12 Ireland; site unknown. Municipal Museum, Plymouth.

13 England; Fairoak, near Hereford Museum. Hereford.

14 Ireland; site unknown. Museum of the Leeds Literary and Philosophical Society.

15 England; Isleworth, Middlesex. Guildhall Museum, London. From the Thames at Sion reach.

16 England; Bottisham lode, Museum of Archæology and Cambridgeshire. Ethnology, Cambridge.

17 England; Hammersmith, The London Museum. Middlesex. From the Thames.

PLATE III.

AN ETRUSCAN PROSPECTOR.

From the lid of a coffin in the British Museum.

_By kind permission of the Trustees._

PLATE IV.

FIVE HUNGARIAN DAGGERS.

A Komoron, Hungary. Ownership unknown. Catalogue (1891) IX. 62.

B Komoron, Hungary. Ownership unknown. Catalogue (1891) IX. 62.

C Szony, Hungary. Ownership unknown. Catalogue (1891) IX. 58.

D Kassa, Hungary. Ownership unknown. Catalogue (1891) IX. 61.

E Transylvania. Ownership unknown. Catalogue (1891) IX. 60.

PLATE V.

SIX LARGER DAGGERS.

A Austria, Langen Wand. Ownership unknown. Naue (1903) xix. 2.

B Germany; site unknown. Imperial Museum, Berlin. Montelius (1900) xxxi. 75. Naue (1903) xix. 3. Bastian & Voss, xiii. 1.

C Denmark; Island of Lolland. Ownership unknown. Muller, Ordnugn, &c., xi. 157. Naue (1903) xix. 4.

D Italy; Cascina Ranza, near Milan. Brera Museum, Milan. Montelius (1895-1904). I.B., xxviii. 2.

E Hungary; site unknown. Antiquaries’ Museum, Zurich. Fehr Collection. Hampel (1886) xix. 6. Arch. Ertesito, xii. 292.

F Hungary; site unknown. Antiquaries’ Museum, Zurich. Fehr Collection. Hampel (1886) lxxxv. 2. Arch. Ertesito, xii. 290.

PLATE VI.

THE SEVEN TYPES OF LEAF-SHAPED SWORDS.

A Hungary, site unknown. Hampel National Museum, Buda-Pest. (1886) xx. 4. Naue (1903) ix. 3.

B Denmark, Norderhaide in the Isle Museum of National of Sylt. Handelmann, Ausgrabungen Antiquities, Kiel. auf Sylt (1873, 1875, 1880), fig. 4. Naue (1903) x. 1.

C Hungary, Buda-Pest. St. National Museum, Buda-Pest. Margaret’s Isle. Dredged from Hampel (1886), cxcvii. 6. the Danube.

D Hungary, Hajdu-böszörmény, National Museum, Buda-Pest. Hajdu Co. Found May, 1883/131. 1858, with sword of Type C.

E Hungary, Magyarorszaz. National Museum, Buda-Pest.

F Switzerland, Morges. Déchelette Lausanne Museum. Album (1908-14) ii. Fig. 64 (2). Musée Lausanne, xiv. 9.

G Austria, Hallstatt. Grave 299. Natural History Museum, Sacken (1868) xix. 10. Vienna. 24,609.

PLATE VII.

SWORDS OF TYPE A, FROM HUNGARY.

1 Hungary, site unknown. Hampel National Museum, Buda-Pest. (1886) xx. 4. Naue (1903) ix. 3.

2 Hungary, site unknown. University Museum of Archæology and Ethnology, Cambridge. Foster bequest.

3 Hungary. Dredged from the Ownership unknown. Danube near Buda-Pest. Catalogue (1891), viii. 45.

4 Schleswig-Holstein, site unknown. Ownership unknown. From a tomb. Splieth (1900) i.9b.

5 Italy, Castions di Strada, near Archæological Museum, Udine. B.P. xxxvii. (1912), 33. Cividale.

6 Italy, near Treviso. Montelius Treviso Museum. (1895-1904) I.B. 39.

PLATE VIII.

SWORDS OF TYPE C, FROM HUNGARY.

1 Site unknown. Catalogue (1891) Ownership unknown. Naue (1903) vii. 42. xi. 3.

2 Site unknown. Hampel (1886) National Museum, Buda-Pest. xx. 7. Naue (1903) viii. 8.

3 Sajo-Gömör. Hampel (1886) National Museum, Buda-Pest. xv. 3. Naue (1903) viii. 3.

4 Site unknown. Catalogue (1891) Ownership unknown. Naue (1903) vii. 43. VIII. 6.

5 Buda-Pest, St. Margaret’s Isle. National Museum, Buda-Pest. Dredged from the Danube. Hampel (1886) cxcvii. 6.

6 Hajdu-böszörmény, Hajdu Co. National Museum, Buda-Pest. found in May, 1858, with 1883/131 (6). three others of Type D.

7 Kis-Koszey (Battina) Baranza Co. Natural History Museum, Vienna. 37811.

PLATE IX.

SWORDS OF TYPE D, FROM HUNGARY.

1 Site unknown. Catalogue (1891) Ownership unknown. Hampel viii. 44. Naue (1903) viii. 7. (1886) xx. 8.

2 Rima-Szombat, Gömör Co., found National Museum, Buda-Pest. with 2 swords Type E. 1867/3. Hampel (1886) cxiii.

3 Endröd, Békés Co. National Museum, Buda-Pest. 1888/33.

4 Magyarorszaz, with four others. National Museum, Buda-Pest.

5 {Hajdu-böszörmény, Hajdu Co., found} National Museum, Buda-Pest, 6 {in May, 1858, with a sword of } 1883/131. 7 {Type C. }

PLATE X.

SWORDS OF TYPE E, FROM HUNGARY.

1} Podhering, Bereg Co. National Museum, Buda-Pest. 2} Hampel (1886) xc. Arch. Ertesito XIV. xxvi. 3} 229-230.

4 Magyarorszaz. National Museum, Buda-Pest.

5 Site unknown. Catalogue (1891) Ownership unknown. Formerly in vii. 4. Naue (1903) ix. 2. Pfeffer collection.

6 Hajdú-böszörmény, Hajdu Co. Ownership unknown. from the Schatze. Naue (1903) ix. 1. Hampel (1886) xx. 2.

7 Oreszka, Zemplén Co. Hampel Collection of Count Antoine (1886) xx. 1 and 3. Sztàray.

PLATE XI.

SWORDS OF TYPE G.

1 Austria, Hallstatt. Grave 126. Natural History Museum, Sacken (1868). Vienna. 24091.

2 Austria, Hallstatt. Grave 299. Natural History Museum, Sacken (1868). Vienna. 24609.

3 Schleswig-Holstein, Siems near Lübeck Museum. 729. Lübeck. Splieth (1900) ix. 171.

4 France, Var, Flayosc. Antiquarian Museum, Marseilles.

5 Ireland, site unknown. Wild, National Museum, Dublin. Cat. Antiq., 319, No. 2.

6 Sweden, Nilsson, Skand Nord. Ur-inv. i. 7. Lubbock (1865) fig. 15.

7 Finland, Nyland, Haapa Kylä Helsingfors Museum. Heath. Crawford (1921) 136. Vorgeschichtliche (1900) xxxii. 4.

PLATE XII.

SWORDS FROM GREEK LANDS.

1 Greece: Mycenæ. Schliemann Athens Museum. No. 1017. (1878) No. 221, p. 144.

2 Greece: Mycenæ. Tsountas, Athens Museum. No. 2539. E. A. (1891) 25.

3 Greece: Levadeia. Athens Museum. No. 8017.

4 Crete: Muliana. Grave B. Έφ. Άρχ. (1904) Pl. 11. p. 44.

5 Crete: Muliana. Grave B. Έφ. Άρχ. (1904) Pl. 11. p. 44.

6 Egypt: Zagazig. Petrie (1917) Berlin Museum. No. 20447. xxxii. 6. Z.f.Æ.S. L.Taf. v. Peet (1911. 2) 283. p. 61.

7 Egypt: site unknown. Petrie Berlin Museum. Z.f.Æ.S. (1917) xxxii. 5. L.Taf. v. p. 61.

8 Egypt: Tell Firaun. Petrie Berlin Museum. No. 20305. (1917) xxxii. 7. Z.f.Æ.S. L.Taf. v. p. 61.

9 Greece: Tiryns. Athens Museum. No. 6228.

10 Greece: Tiryns. Athens Museum. No. 6228.

11 Cyprus: site unknown. Coll. Professor P. Geddes.

PLATE XIII.

SWORDS FROM ITALY.

1 Ascoli Piceno. Montelius Prehistoric Museum, Rome. (1895-1904) II. ii. B. 131.

2 Lake Trasimene. Naue (1903) Collection Baron Franz von vii. 4. Montelius (1895-1904) Lippenheide, at Schloss II. ii. B. 126. Matzen.

3 At the bridge of Frassineto, on Museum of Arezzo. B.P. XXVI. the banks of the Chiana. viii. 1. Montelius (1895-1904) II. ii. B. 126.

4 Lake Trasimene. Naue (1903) Formerly in the collection of vii. 3. Montelius (1895-1904) M. Amilcare Ancona, at Milan. II. ii. B. 126.

5 Lake Trasimene. Naue (1903) Ownership unknown. vii. 2.

6 Alerona, com. de Ficuile, Province Prehistoric Museum, Rome. of Orvieto. Montelius B.P. XXVI. viii. 4. (1895-1904) II. ii. B. 126.

7 Rome. Naue (1903) vii. 5. Collection of M. Amilcare Ancona, at Milan.

8 Near Lake Fucino. Montelius Prehistoric Museum, Rome. (1895-1904) II. ii. B. 142. B.P. xii. 261; xxix. 84-86.

9 Near Lake Fucino. Montelius Prehistoric Museum, Rome. (1895-1904) II. ii. B. 142. B.P. xii. 261; xxix. 84-86.

10 Near Lake Fucino. Montelius Prehistoric Museum, Rome. (1895-1904) II. ii. B. 142. B.P. xii. 261; xxix. 84-86.

11 Sulmona. Naue (1903) vii. 1. Collection Baron Franz von Lippenheide, at Schloss Matzen.

12 Apulia, site unknown. Naue Ownership unknown. (1903) vii. 6.

PLATE XIV.

SWORDS FROM ENGLAND.

1 Brentford, Middlesex. From the Public Library, Brentford. bed of the Thames, above the Layton Collection. G.W.R. dock.

2 Wetheringsett, Suffolk. Arch. Norwich Castle Museum. Ass. Journ. iii. (1848) 254, Fitch collection, 785, xv. (1859) pl. xxiii. 4. Evans 76, 94. Catalogue of Anc. Br. Impl. fig. 345. p. Antiquities, 315. 282.

3 Wilburton, Cambridgeshire. Museum of Archæology and Found in the peat. Arch. Ethnology, Cambridge. New xlviii. 106. Cambridge, 17 May, 1919.

4 Amerside Law Farm, Chatton, Alnwick Castle Museum, No. Northumberland. 228.

5 Brentford, Middlesex. From Public Library, Brentford. the bed of the Thames, above Layton Collection. the G.W.R. dock.

6 Richmond, Surrey. From the Public Library, Richmond. bed of the Thames, at the Lloyd Collection. No. 816. lock and weir.

7 Newcastle-upon-Tyne. From Black Gate Museum, the Tyne. Newcastle-upon-Tyne. No. 88.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Beddoe (1885) 29; Holmes (1907) 434, 437, 440; Macalister (1921) 2. 41-49.]

[Footnote 2: Moir (1921) 390-411; Burkitt (1921) 2. 456, 7; Man xxii. 33.]

[Footnote 3: Macalister (1921) 1. 148-177.]

[Footnote 4: Keith (1915) 1. 228-244; Schötensack (1908).]

[Footnote 5: Keith (1915) 1. 293-452; Dawson, etc. (1913); Boule (1915).]

[Footnote 6: Keith (1915) 1. 178-193; Duckworth (1913); Macalister (1921) 1. 222, where other authorities are cited.]

[Footnote 7: _Nature_, 12th October, 1916.]

[Footnote 8: The question is well discussed by Macalister (1921) 1. 196-204, who gives numerous references.]

[Footnote 9: Osborn (1921) 585, 6.]

[Footnote 10: Obermaier (1906-7).]

[Footnote 11: Burkitt (1921) 1. 95-97; Macalister (1921) 1. 215-218, 255-259, 585-590.]

[Footnote 12: Obermaier (1906-7); Burkitt (1921) 1. 47; Macalister (1921) 1. 584, where other authorities are cited.]

[Footnote 13: _Vid. infr._ p. 6.]

[Footnote 14: Macalister (1921) 1. 285-314, where all authorities are fully cited; Keith (1915) 118.]

[Footnote 15: Macalister (1921) 1. 298-301; who cites Boule (1911-13).]

[Footnote 16: Keith (1915) 1. 122-124, 156.]

[Footnote 17: Keith (1915) 1. 102-136; Macalister (1921) 1. 285-314.]

[Footnote 18: Smith (1922) 464, 465; but a different view is held by Woodward (1922) 579.]

[Footnote 19: Burkitt (1921) 1. 72, 92, 97, 98.]

[Footnote 20: Macalister (1921) 1. 581, who cites Hrdlička.]

[Footnote 21: Macalister (1921) 1. 313; Keith (1915) 1. 135.]

[Footnote 22: Vid. Appendix I.]

[Footnote 23: From Capsa, the old name for Gafra in Tunisia; Morgan, etc. (1910-1).]

[Footnote 24: Macalister (1921) 1. 576-580.]

[Footnote 25: Burkitt (1921) 1. 95, 106.]

[Footnote 26: Seligman (1921).]

[Footnote 27: Seligman (1921) 128.]

[Footnote 28: Macalister (1921) 1. 581.]

[Footnote 29: Fleure (1920).]

[Footnote 30: Testut (1889).]

[Footnote 31: Keith (1915) 1. 62-68.]

[Footnote 32: Keith (1915) 1. 66.]

[Footnote 33: Keith (1915) 1. 65.]

[Footnote 34: Fleure (1920).]

[Footnote 35: Ripley (1900) 39, 173.]

[Footnote 36: Ripley (1900) 39, 40.]

[Footnote 37: Parkyn (1915); Burkitt (1921) 1. 192-272.]

[Footnote 38: Fleure (1920) 19-21.]

[Footnote 39: Corrêa (1919) 121, 122.]

[Footnote 40: Bourguignat (1868) 43, 48, 49, Pl. vii., viii.]

[Footnote 41: Ripley (1900) 165-179.]

[Footnote 42: Thus Burkitt (1921) 1. 42, 127, but Macalister (1921) 1. 373, 376, 582, states that the steppe conditions had passed before the beginning of the Solutrean period.]

[Footnote 43: Burkitt (1921) 1. 130-133.]

[Footnote 44: Burkitt (1921) 1. 132, 135.]

[Footnote 45: Burkitt (1921) 1. 129; Macalister (1921) 1. 434.]

[Footnote 46: Burkitt (1921) 1. 129.]

[Footnote 47: Montelius (1921).]

[Footnote 48: Nordmann (1922).]

[Footnote 49: Burkitt (1921) 1. 232.]

[Footnote 50: Fleure (1920) 21-25.]

[Footnote 51: Burkitt (1921) 1. 43.]

[Footnote 52: Testut (1889); Clark (1920) 288-291.]

[Footnote 53: Sollas (1911) 348-350, where all authorities are cited.]

[Footnote 54: Osborn (1918) 516-518.]

[Footnote 55: Burkitt (1921) 1. 273-285.]

[Footnote 56: Macalister (1921) 1. 525.]

[Footnote 57: Macalister (1921) 1. 537, 538.]

[Footnote 58: Sergi (1901).]

[Footnote 59: Brace (1863) 65, 66; Keane (1908) 360.]

[Footnote 60: Giuffrida-Ruggeri (1921).]

[Footnote 61: Jones, Morris (1900).]

[Footnote 62: Macalister (1921) 1. 541, 542.]

[Footnote 63: Macalister (1921) 1. 542.]

[Footnote 64: Macalister (1921) 1. 542.]

[Footnote 65: Corrêa (1919) 123.]

[Footnote 66: Osborn (1918) 481-485.]

[Footnote 67: Peake (1922) 1. 64, 65.]

[Footnote 68: Osborn (1918), 487, 488.]

[Footnote 69: Johansen (1918-19).]

[Footnote 70: Burkitt (1921) 1. 155.]

[Footnote 71: Burkitt (1921) 1. 156.]

[Footnote 72: Peake (1919).]

[Footnote 73: Nordmann (1922).]

[Footnote 74: Macalister (1921) 1. 533-535.]

[Footnote 75: Burkitt (1921) 1. 108, 155.]

[Footnote 76: Peake & Crawford (1922).]

[Footnote 77: Fleure & James (1916) 114; Beddoe (1885) 8-13.]

[Footnote 78: Bosanquet (1904) 216-233.]

[Footnote 79: Peet (1909) 150; Mosso (1910) 365-367.]

[Footnote 80: Déchelette (1908-14) 1. 355-661 _passim_.]

[Footnote 81: (Warren 1921).]

[Footnote 82: Smith, G. Elliot (1919) 143, 150-153.]

[Footnote 83: Smith, G. Elliot (1919) 221-225.]

[Footnote 84: Smith, G. Elliot (1911) 4.]

[Footnote 85: Macalister (1921) 1. 353.]

[Footnote 86: Mosso (1910) 205-209.]

[Footnote 87: Peake & Hooton (1915) 98, 117.]

[Footnote 88: Lubbock (1865) 201, 202.]

[Footnote 89: Breasted (1912) 28.]

[Footnote 90: Newberry (1920).]

[Footnote 91: Breasted (1912) 597.]

[Footnote 92: Hall (1920).]

[Footnote 93: Gowland (1912) 247; King (1910) 72, 360.]

[Footnote 94: Pumpelly (1908) 1. 32 _et seq._]

[Footnote 95: Breasted (1912) 28.]

[Footnote 96: Breasted (1912) 6, 94.]

[Footnote 97: Breasted (1912) 136.]

[Footnote 98: Breasted (1912) 94.]

[Footnote 99: Sayce (1921).]

[Footnote 100: Gowland (1912), 245, 252.]

[Footnote 101: Peake (1916) 2. 119, 120.]

[Footnote 102: Leeds (1922).]

[Footnote 103: Siret (1908, 1909, 1910).]

[Footnote 104: Hildburgh (1922).]

[Footnote 105: Schliemann (1880) 349, figs. 245, 246.]

[Footnote 106: Peake (1916) 1. 169.]

[Footnote 107: Peake (1916) 2. 119, 120.]

[Footnote 108: Peake (1916) 2. 119, 120.]

[Footnote 109: Peet (1909) 194, quoting B.P. xxiv. 208; 214, 260, fig. 142, quoting B.P. xxii. 305.]

[Footnote 110: Zammit (1917) Pl. xxi. fig. 2.]

[Footnote 111: Crawford (1912) 1. 194, where the literature on the subject is summarised.]

[Footnote 112: Armstrong (1920).]

[Footnote 113: Crawford (1912) 1. 195, 196, with map (fig. 8).]

[Footnote 114: Crawford (1912) 2. 42.]

[Footnote 115: cf. _inter alia_ M.A.N. (1908-9) 5, fig. 1, 11, fig. 5.]

[Footnote 116: Crawford (1912) 1. 186, fig. 2.]

[Footnote 117: Peake (1922) 2.]

[Footnote 118: Clark (1911).]

[Footnote 119: Peake (1911).]

[Footnote 120: Crawford (1912) 1. 196.]

[Footnote 121: Evans (1897) 212.]

[Footnote 122: Crawford (1912) 1. 196.]

[Footnote 123: Peake (1917).]

[Footnote 124: Peake (1922) 2.]

[Footnote 125: Crawford (1912) 1. 197, fig. 9.]

[Footnote 126: Fergusson (1872); Borlase (1897); Peet (1912).]

[Footnote 127: Peet (1912) 98-113; Ashby, etc.; Magri (1906); Zammit (1910).]

[Footnote 128: Peet (1912) 1-4; see also Giuffrida-Ruggeri (1916) 21, who quotes Patroni (1916).]

[Footnote 129: Smith (1913).]

[Footnote 130: Peake (1916) 2. 116, 117.]

[Footnote 131: Perry (1915); Smith (1915).]

[Footnote 132: Perry (1915).]

[Footnote 133: Fergusson (1872) map, p. 533.]

[Footnote 134: Lane-Fox (1869) 66.]

[Footnote 135: Aberg (1916) 22, 23, map ii.]

[Footnote 136: Déchelette (1908-1914) i. 384-386; Mortillet (1901) 32.]

[Footnote 137: Sterjna (1910).]

[Footnote 138: Lane-Fox (1869) 66.]

[Footnote 139: Déchelette (1908-14) ii. map facing p. 512.]

[Footnote 140: Sterjna (1910); Déchelette (1908-1914) i. 393.]

[Footnote 141: Zammit (1917) Pl. xxi. fig. 2.]

[Footnote 142: Joshua v. 2; cf. Exodus iv. 25.]

[Footnote 143: 1 Kings vi. 7.]

[Footnote 144: Leeds (1920) 229.]

[Footnote 145: Leeds (1922).]

[Footnote 146: Zammit (1920) Pl. xxxiv. fig. 3.]

[Footnote 147: Sergi (1901) 284, fig. 78.]

[Footnote 148: Peet (1909) 204, fig. 75; Déchelette (1908-1914) ii. 75.]

[Footnote 149: Peake (1916) 1. 169.]

[Footnote 150: The megalithic structures had passed through several stages before the arrival in Jutland of the single grave people, or beaker-folk. cf. Sterjna (1910).]

[Footnote 151: Smith (1913).]

[Footnote 152: Macalister (1912) 12-20.]

[Footnote 153: Fleure and James (1916).]

[Footnote 154: Fleure and James (1916) 117.]

[Footnote 155: Fleure and James (1916) 137.]

[Footnote 156: Fleure and James (1916) 138.]

[Footnote 157: Fleure and James (1916) 139; Fleure (1918) 1. 16; Fleure (1918) 2. 222, 223.]

[Footnote 158: Fleure and James (1916) 139; Fleure (1918) 1. 16; Fleure (1918) 2. 222, 223.]

[Footnote 159: Dennis (1883) i. 261; ii. 332; Taylor (1874) 94; Lovett-Cameron (1909) 188.]

[Footnote 160: Dennis (1883) i. xxxv.; Herodotus i. 94.]

[Footnote 161: Dennis (1883) i. xxviii., who quotes various Latin writers.]

[Footnote 162: Dennis (1883) i. 37, 264-269, 388, 413, 414, 455.]

[Footnote 163: Dennis (1883) ii. 458; but see Peet (1912) 76.]

[Footnote 164: Dennis (1883) ii. 275.]

[Footnote 165: Dennis (1883) ii. 116.]

[Footnote 166: Jastrow (1911) 147-206, but specially 192; see also Modestov (1907) 388ff., who quotes Cara (1894-1902) iii. 338.]

[Footnote 167: King (1910) figs. 20, 23, 24, 39, 40, 44, 45; Langdon (1920). Pl. xi. fig. 1; Pl. xii. fig. 9.]

[Footnote 168: Dennis (1883) i. 261, ii. 332.]

[Footnote 169: Morgan (1905) Pl. xv., xvi., xxiii.]

[Footnote 170: Peet (1912) 115-118; Macalister (1912) 17, 18; Fergusson (1872) 438-445.]

[Footnote 171: Peet (1912) 114; Morgan (1894) i. 261-266.]

[Footnote 172: Pumpelly (1905) 114.]

[Footnote 173: King (1910) 53.]

[Footnote 174: Schenk (1912) 188.]

[Footnote 175: Keller (1866) 57, 297.]

[Footnote 176: Keller (1866); Munro (1890); Schenk (1912).]

[Footnote 177: Šmid (1908), (1909) 117-126; other authorities are cited in fn. p. 118.]

[Footnote 178: Herodotus v. 16.]

[Footnote 179: Hippocrates xxxvii.]

[Footnote 180: Ripley (1900) 549, 550.]

[Footnote 181: In this connection compare the thrifty Pæonian maiden mentioned by Herodotus v. 12, 13.]

[Footnote 182: Peake (1922) 1. 30, 31, 54, 55, and for a late survival of communal marriage, Kovalevsky (1891).]

[Footnote 183: Schenk (1912) 191, 544.]

[Footnote 184: Schenk (1912) 460, 461, 544.]

[Footnote 185: Keith (1915) 2. 18.]

[Footnote 186: Vidal de la Blache in Lavisse (1896) I. i. 30-39, map facing p. 54.]

[Footnote 187: Minns (1913) 133-140.]

[Footnote 188: Stern (1906).]

[Footnote 189: Mosso (1910) 112, fig. 67.]

[Footnote 190: Chvojka (1904) 223, quoted by Minns (1913) 140.]

[Footnote 191: Keith (1915) 2. 21.]

[Footnote 192: Peake (1916) 1. 165, 166.]

[Footnote 193: Keith (1915) 2. 13.]

[Footnote 194: Minns (1913) 142-145; Zaborowski (1895) 125-130, 134-135; Rostovtzeff (1920) 60, 109-111.]

[Footnote 195: Myres (1906) 541.]

[Footnote 196: Minns (1913) 142.]

[Footnote 197: Peake (1916) 1. 163 fn.]

[Footnote 198: Rostovtzeff (1920) 110.]

[Footnote 199: Zaborowski (1895) 310.]

[Footnote 200: Myres (1906) 542.]

[Footnote 201: Bogdanov (1892).]

[Footnote 202: Sergi (1908) 309-316.]

[Footnote 203: Peake (1919) 197.]

[Footnote 204: Bogdanov (1892) 4.]

[Footnote 205: Minns (1913) 142, 143; Zaborowski (1895) 126; Rostovtzeff (1920) 60, 110.]

[Footnote 206: Osborn (1918) 337.]

[Footnote 207: Peake (1916) 1. 162, 163; (1922) 1. 51.]

[Footnote 208: Huntington (1907).]

[Footnote 209: Huntington (1911).]

[Footnote 210: Peisker (1911) 325-328.]

[Footnote 211: Brooks (1921).]

[Footnote 212: Pumpelly (1908) i. 32.]

[Footnote 213: Cook (1921) 321-323.]

[Footnote 214: Myres (1911) 104-119.]

[Footnote 215: Peake (1916) _1_. 172.]

[Footnote 216: Minns (1913) 142.]

[Footnote 217: Wace & Thompson (1912).]

[Footnote 218: Peake (1916) _1_.]

[Footnote 219: Minns (1913) 133-140.]

[Footnote 220: Myres (1906) 542.]

[Footnote 221: Pumpelly (1908) i. 43.]

[Footnote 222: Boyd & Hawes (1912) 33.]

[Footnote 223: Pumpelly (1908) i. 48.]

[Footnote 224: Pumpelly (1908) i. 50.]

[Footnote 225: Peake (1916) _1_. 171.]

[Footnote 226: Lacouperie (1887) 113-119; (1894) ch. iv., v.]

[Footnote 227: Douglas (1899) 3.]

[Footnote 228: Cordier (1920) i. 27, 28.]

[Footnote 229: King (1915) 215.]

[Footnote 230: King (1915) 320.]

[Footnote 231: King (1915) 215.]

[Footnote 232: Myres (1906) 541.]

[Footnote 233: Lapouge (1899) 245-249.]

[Footnote 234: Peake (1916) 1.]

[Footnote 235: Myres (1906) 542.]

[Footnote 236: Schliemann (1880) 507-512; Virchow (1882).]

[Footnote 237: Hall (1913) 337-338.]

[Footnote 238: Hall (1913) 199.]

[Footnote 239: Minns (1913) 132.]

[Footnote 240: Zaborowski (1895) 125.]

[Footnote 241: Peake (1916) _1_. 163.]

[Footnote 242: Taylor (1889) 118, 119.]

[Footnote 243: Peake (1919) 201, 202.]

[Footnote 244: Nordman (1922).]

[Footnote 245: Peake (1916) 1. 166.]

[Footnote 246: Abercromby (1912) i. 15.]

[Footnote 247: Leeds (1922); see also Abercromby (1912) i. 10.]

[Footnote 248: In the discussion following Crawford (1912) 1. 198; see also Abercromby (1912) i. 11.]

[Footnote 249: Schliemann (1880) figs. 254, 255, 300, pp. 357-367; fig. 781, p. 468; see also Abercromby (1912) i. 10, where he quotes Montelius (1900) 119.]

[Footnote 250: Reche (1908) 220.]

[Footnote 251: Abercromby (1912) i. 16, 66; Crawford (1912) 1. 190.]

[Footnote 252: Aberg (1916) map 1.]

[Footnote 253: Abercromby (1912) i. 67, 68.]

[Footnote 254: Lowe (1902-1904).]

[Footnote 255: Grey & Tocher (1900).]

[Footnote 256: Crawford (1912) 1. 188, 189; Abercromby (1912) i. 38, 39.]

[Footnote 257: Loth (1920) 259-288.]

[Footnote 258: Holmes (1907) 195, 428-440.]

[Footnote 259: Abercromby (1912) i. 54.]

[Footnote 260: Schenk (1912) 191, 536-539, 544.]

[Footnote 261: Peake (1922) 1. 70.]

[Footnote 262: Peake (1922) 1. 70-72.]

[Footnote 263: Deuteronomy vii. 3.]

[Footnote 264: Lissauer (1904) map.]

[Footnote 265: Mackenzie (1907-8) 351.]

[Footnote 266: Peake (1914).]

[Footnote 267: B.P. Pl. VII.a. fig. 13 in Trento Museum.]

[Footnote 268: Naue (1903) 43-75.]

[Footnote 269: Naue (1903) 12-25.]

[Footnote 270: Peet (1909) 348.]

[Footnote 271: For details see next chapter.]

[Footnote 272: Hampel (1886) Pl. xx. 4, 6; Naue (1903) Pl. ix. 3.]

[Footnote 273: Catalogue (1891) 8, Pl. viii. 45.]

[Footnote 274: B.P. xxxvi. (1912) 22, fig. c.p. 33.]

[Footnote 275: Montelius (1895-1904) I.B. Pl. 34.]

[Footnote 276: Splieth (1900) 12, Pl. i. 9b.]

[Footnote 277: Hampel (1886) Pl. cxvii. 21.]

[Footnote 278: Montelius (1895-1904) II. ii. B. Pl. 131.]

[Footnote 279: Naue (1903) 17 fn. 3, Pl. viii. 1.]

[Footnote 280: Naue (1903) ix. 8; x. 4; xi. 2.]

[Footnote 281: Splieth (1900) 60.]

[Footnote 282: Naue (1903) xi. 3; viii. 6; viii. 8.]

[Footnote 283: These are in the Vienna Museum, Nos. 37811, 39807.]

[Footnote 284: Hampel (1886) cxv. 3; Naue (1903) viii. 3.]

[Footnote 285: In the Buda-Pest Museum 1883/131 (6).]

[Footnote 286: Hampel (1886) cxcvii. 6; Buda-Pest Museum 1893/18 (1).]

[Footnote 287: Naue (1903) viii. 5; Catalogue (1891) vii. 40; 7.]

[Footnote 288: Vienna Museum No. 9295; Heger (1903) 133, Fig. 3.]

[Footnote 289: [vS]mid (1909) Fig. 18; 119.]

[Footnote 290: Montelius (1895-1904) II. ii. B. Pl. 126; Naue (1903) vii. 4.]

[Footnote 291: Naue (1903) ix. 6, 7.]

[Footnote 292: Müller (1908-9) Figs. 48-50.]

[Footnote 293: Naue (1903) viii. 4; viii. 7.]

[Footnote 294: Buda-Pest Museum 1883/131.]

[Footnote 295: Hampel (1886) xc. 1, 5.]

[Footnote 296: Hampel (1886) cxv. 1, 2.]

[Footnote 297: Vienna Museum, Nos. 1928, 1929.]

[Footnote 298: Hampel (1886) cxiii.]

[Footnote 299: Buda-Pest Museum 1888/33.]

[Footnote 300: Buda-Pest Museum.]

[Footnote 301: Vienna Museum No. 18024.]

[Footnote 302: Vienna Museum No. 50506.]

[Footnote 303: Linz Museum No. A 691.]

[Footnote 304: Vienna Museum No. 33100.]

[Footnote 305: Linz Museum No. A 605.]

[Footnote 306: Vienna Museum Nos. 18020, 35617, 37584.]

[Footnote 307: In the Museum of Vienna Neüstadt.]

[Footnote 308: Vienna Museum No. 45721.]

[Footnote 309: [vS]mid (1909) Figs. 20, 19, p. 119.]

[Footnote 310: Szombathy (1913) Figs. 79, 92.]

[Footnote 311: Montelius (1895-1904), II. ii. B. Pl. 126.]

[Footnote 312: Naue (1903) vii. 2, 3.]

[Footnote 313: Montelius (1895-1904) II. ii. B. Pl. 126.]

[Footnote 314: Naue (1903) vii. 5.]

[Footnote 315: Montelius (1895-1904) II. ii. B. Pl. 142.]

[Footnote 316: B.P. xxxv. (1910) Pl. xiv. 1.]

[Footnote 317: Naue (1903) vii. 1.]

[Footnote 318: Naue (1903) vii. 6.]

[Footnote 319: Schliemann (1878) 144, No. 221.]

[Footnote 320: Tsountas Έφ. Άρχ. (1891) 25.]

[Footnote 321: Peet (1911-12) 282; Έφ. Άρχ. (1904) 21-50.]

[Footnote 322: In the possession of Professor Patrick Geddes.]

[Footnote 323: Petrie (1917) Pl. xxxii. 6, 7; Z.f.Æ.S. l 61, ff. Pl. v.; Peet (1911-12) 282.]

[Footnote 324: Catalogue (1891) 7. vii. 41; Naue (1903) ix. 1.]

[Footnote 325: Hampel (1886) xc. 3.]

[Footnote 326: Hampel (1886) cxiii.]

[Footnote 327: Buda-Pest Museum 1865/83.]

[Footnote 328: Buda-Pest Museum 1901/27.]

[Footnote 329: Hampel (1886) xx. 2; Naue (1903) ix. 1.]

[Footnote 330: Hampel (1886) xx. 1, 3.]

[Footnote 331: Vienna Museum No. 50505.]

[Footnote 332: Vienna Museum Nos. 4143, 37579, 34860.]

[Footnote 333: Vienna Museum No. 45721.]

[Footnote 334: In the Museum of Vienna Neüstadt.]

[Footnote 335: Vienna Museum Nos. 38951, 6284.]

[Footnote 336: Karo (1916) 143; Athens Museum No. 6228.]

[Footnote 337: C.I.A.P.A. 11th sess. Aug. 1892. I. ii. 343, fig. 2.]

[Footnote 338: Montelius (1895-1904) I.B. 37.]

[Footnote 339: Truhelka (1904).]

[Footnote 340: Déchelette (1908-1914) ii. 601-6; Sacken (1868).]

[Footnote 341: Tröltsch (1884) maps 1 and 2.]

[Footnote 342: Déchelette (1908-1914) ii. 724.]

[Footnote 343: Splieth (1900) Pl. ix. 171; p. 76.]

[Footnote 344: One from Sweden is figured by Lubbock (1865) 16i fig. 15.]

[Footnote 345: Vorgeschichtliche (1900) Pl. xxxii. fig. 4; Crawford (1921) 136 (b.).]

[Footnote 346: Déchelette (1908-1914) ii. 725.]

[Footnote 347: There is a broken hilt of a sword resembling this type in the museum at Florence; its provenance is unknown. Montelius (1895-1904) II. ii. B. Pl. 131.]

[Footnote 348: Crawford (1922).]

[Footnote 349: In a letter to Crawford; no description has yet been published.]

[Footnote 350: Cunnington (1922).]

[Footnote 351: Abercromby (1912) ii. 40-48, 107.]

[Footnote 352: Abercromby (1912) ii. 38-40, 47, 107.]

[Footnote 353: Dörpfeld (1902); Dussaud (1910 and 1914); Leaf (1912 and 1915).]

[Footnote 354: Ridgeway (1901).]

[Footnote 355: Wace (1916) 29, 30; (1920) 398.]

[Footnote 356: Hall (1913) 63; Mackenzie (1908-8).]

[Footnote 357: Harrison (1908) 312n, 318, 319; Hall (1913) 520 fn.]

[Footnote 358: Herodotus viii. 73.]

[Footnote 359: Ridgeway (1901) 339.]

[Footnote 360: Hall (1913) 520 fn.]

[Footnote 361: Ure (1922) 297-99.]

[Footnote 362: Peake (1916) 1, 158, 159.]

[Footnote 363: Hawes (1909) 23-25.]

[Footnote 364: Boyd and Hawes (1912).]

[Footnote 365: Seager (1912) 104-106.]

[Footnote 366: Gardiner (1909) 32; (1914) 32.]

[Footnote 367: Vid. supr. p. 22.]

[Footnote 368: Ure (1922).]

[Footnote 369: Ure (1922) 306.]

[Footnote 370: Wells (1902) 156, 157; (1909) 486.]

[Footnote 371: James (1902) 318, 319.]

[Footnote 372: App. II.]

[Footnote 373: Hall (1913) 67; Ridgeway (1901) 351.]

[Footnote 374: Giles, P., in a recent lecture.]

[Footnote 375: Æschylus _Agamemnon_, 1178-1245, 1468-1474.]

[Footnote 376: Ridgeway (1901) 400.]

[Footnote 377: Deniker (1900) 49, 50.]

[Footnote 378: Homer, _Iliad_ ii. 219.]

[Footnote 379: Chadwick (1912) ch. xv.]

[Footnote 380: Ridgeway (1901) ch. iv.]

[Footnote 381: Ridgeway (1901) 339, 380.]

[Footnote 382: Breasted (1912) 467; Hall (1913) 70, 377, he gives the date as 1230 /B.C./]

[Footnote 383: Peet (1911-12) 282.]

[Footnote 384: Peake (1916) 1. 170; Myres (1911) 117.]

[Footnote 385: Myres (1913) 534, 535.]

[Footnote 386: Chantre (1886) ii.]

[Footnote 387: Chantre (1886) ii. 101-8.]

[Footnote 388: Gowland (1912) 281.]

[Footnote 389: Æschylus. _Pr. vinc._ 734.]

[Footnote 390: Chantre (1886) ii. 107.]

[Footnote 391: Rostovtzeff (1920) 111.]

[Footnote 392: Lissauer (1904) 573-580.]

[Footnote 393: Chantre (1886) ii. Pl. xix. 1, 2.]

[Footnote 394: Lissauer (1904) 578-580; Chantre (1886) ii Pl. xix. 1, 2.]

[Footnote 395: Gowland (1899) 319; cf. J.I.S.I. (1897) lii. 205.]

[Footnote 396: Homer, _Il._ xiii. 576; xxiii. 808.]

[Footnote 397: Casson (1921) 1, 2.]

[Footnote 398: Déchelette (1908-14) ii. 591, 592, where all authorities are cited.]

[Footnote 399: Gowland (1899) 49, 50.]

[Footnote 400: Déchelette (1908-14) ii. 592, where all authorities are cited.]

[Footnote 401: B.P. 4th ser. v. (1910) 154; N.S. (1909) 75, 76.]

[Footnote 402: Déchelette (1908-14) ii. 536, 539, 540.]

[Footnote 403: Modestov (1907) 217.]

[Footnote 404: Modestov (1907) 224.]

[Footnote 405: Peet (1909) 421; N.S. (1900) 411; Modestov (1907) 219.]

[Footnote 406: Hooton (1913); see also Modestov (1907) 226.]

[Footnote 407: Herodotus i. 43; iv. 49.]

[Footnote 408: Livy v. 33; quoted by Dennis (1883) i. xxix.]

[Footnote 409: Déchelette (1908-14) ii. 536-539.]

[Footnote 410: Déchelette (1908-14) ii. 114.]

[Footnote 411: Déchelette (1908-14) ii. 114.]

[Footnote 412: Déchelette (1908-14) ii. 935-941.]

[Footnote 413: Crawford (1922) 33, 34.]

[Footnote 414: Déchelette (1908-14) map ii., in ii. pt. 2.]

[Footnote 415: Peake (1919) 200-202.]

[Footnote 416: See ch. vi.]

[Footnote 417: Peet (1909) 431.]

[Footnote 418: Herodotus vii. 73.]

[Footnote 419: Xenophanes, quoted by Clement of Alexandria: _Stromateis_ vii. 711b.]

[Footnote 420: Déchelette (1908-14) ii. 796.]

[Footnote 421: Modestov (1907) 217; Déchelette (1908-14) ii. 529-540.]

[Footnote 422: Hooton (1913).]

[Footnote 423: Déchelette (1908-14) ii. 529-540; Modestov (1907) ch. viii.]

[Footnote 424: Jones (1788).]

[Footnote 425: Bopp (1833), (1845-50), (1866-74).]

[Footnote 426: Klaproth (1823).]

[Footnote 427: Giles (1910-11); 1922, 66.]

[Footnote 428: Max-Müller (1855) 29.]

[Footnote 429: Penka (1883, 1886).]

[Footnote 430: Gobineau (1853-55).]

[Footnote 431: Grant (1916), (1921).]

[Footnote 432: Chamberlain (1911).]

[Footnote 433: Ripley (1900) 217, 218; Parsons (1919).]

[Footnote 434: Adelung (1806-17) ii. 6.]

[Footnote 435: Pott (1840) 19.]

[Footnote 436: Tylor (1881) 79-82.]

[Footnote 437: Hehn (1874) quoted by Taylor (1889) 23.]

[Footnote 438: Latham (1851) cxlii., (1854) 197, 198, (1859) ii. 503.]

[Footnote 439: Max-Müller (1888) 127.]

[Footnote 440: Fick (1868).]

[Footnote 441: Geiger (1871) 113-150.]

[Footnote 442: Piètrement (1879).]

[Footnote 443: Cuno (1871).]

[Footnote 444: Schrader (1890) 438.]

[Footnote 445: Giles (1922).]

[Footnote 446: Giles (1922) 67, 68.]

[Footnote 447: Schrader (1890) ch. v.]

[Footnote 448: Obermaier (1912) i. 439-464; Hoops (1904); (1911-19) ii. 354.]

[Footnote 449: Giles (1922) 66.]

[Footnote 450: Giles (1922) 69.]

[Footnote 451: Schrader (1890) 438.]

[Footnote 452: Giles (1922) 67.]

[Footnote 453: Fleure (1922) 13.]

[Footnote 454: Schenk (1912) 176.]

[Footnote 455: App. I.]

[Footnote 456: Giles (1922) 69, 70.]

[Footnote 457: Huntington (1907), (1911).]

[Footnote 458: Herodotus i. 203, 204; iv. 40; Casson (1918-19) 175-183.]

[Footnote 459: Casson (1918-19) 178.]

[Footnote 460: The best summaries up to this date are Taylor (1889) and Reinach (1892).]

[Footnote 461: Sieg and Siegling (1921).]

[Footnote 462: Hrozný (1917).]

[Footnote 463: Rhys (1894).]

[Footnote 464: Zimmer (1912); Meyer (1895-6) 55-86.]

[Footnote 465: Rhys (1894) 119.]

[Footnote 466: Rhys (1894) 122, 130.]

[Footnote 467: Zimmer (1912); Meyer (1895-6) 55-86.]

[Footnote 468: Schrader (1890) 225-228.]

[Footnote 469: Tomaschek (1894).]

[Footnote 470: Conway (1897).]

[Footnote 471: Conway (1897) i. 287.]

[Footnote 472: Conway (1897) i. 370.]

[Footnote 473: Kiepert (1882) Tab. viii.]

[Footnote 474: Dion. Halic. ix. xiv.]

[Footnote 475: Niebuhr (1827) i. 80.]

[Footnote 476: Dion. Halic. xiv.]

[Footnote 477: Dion. Halic. xvi.]

[Footnote 478: Rhys (1894) 112.]

[Footnote 479: Crawford (1922) 34, 35.]

[Footnote 480:

A. xxx. (1920) 575, 576; where there is an abstract of a paper read 19th May, 1920, before the Institut français d’Anthropologie, entitled L’établissement des Celtes dans les Isles Britanniques et de ses indices archéologiques à propos de la diffusion des épées de bronze à soie-plate rivetée.

M. Hubert informs me that his work on the Celts will be published shortly.]

[Footnote 481: King (1915) 215 fn.]

[Footnote 482: McDougall (1920) ch. xv.]

[Footnote 483: Sergi (1908) 309-16.]

[Footnote 484: Fleure (1922) 12, 13.]

[Footnote 485: Bogdanov (1892) 1.]

[Footnote 486: Giles (1922) 76, King (1915) 214.]

[Footnote 487: King (1915) 215 fn.]

[Footnote 488: Minns (1913) 36-39, 102, 115.]

[Footnote 489: Chadwick (1899).]

[Footnote 490: Nilsson (1868) 234-43.]

[Footnote 491: Vigfussen & Powell (1883) i. 234-242.]

[Footnote 492: Peake (1919) 186-192.]

[Footnote 493: Müller (1864) 524-539.]

[Footnote 494: Rostovtzeff (1920) 111.]

[Footnote 495: Diodorus Siculus v. 32; Niebuhr (1838) ii. 523.]

[Footnote 496: Ridgeway (1901) 369, 370.]

[Footnote 497: Hom. _Od._ ii. 14.]

[Footnote 498: Rhys (1884) 279.]

[Footnote 499: Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ III. ix.]

[Footnote 500: Holmes (1907) 438, says the term was used by Broca (1871) i. 395.]

[Footnote 501: Herodotus iv. 12.]

[Footnote 502: Déchelette (1908-14) ii. 593.]

[Footnote 503: Herodotus i. 6, 15, 16.]

[Footnote 504: Déchelette (1908-14) ii. 615, 616.]

[Footnote 505: Pliny iv. 95; Solinus xix. 2; quoted by Rhys and Brynmor-Jones (1900) 80.]

[Footnote 506: Rhys and Brynmor-Jones (1900) 80.]

[Footnote 507: Bulleid & Grey (1911, 1917).]

[Footnote 508: Macalister (1921) 2, 24, 50.]

[Footnote 509: Macalister (1921) 2, 256.]

[Footnote 510: Bushe-Fox (1915).]

[Footnote 511: Budgen, Rev. W., Hallstatt Pottery from Eastbourne. A.J. II. 354-360.]

[Footnote 512: Geoffrey of Monmouth, _Hist. Brit._ iii. 8-10.]

[Footnote 513: Jubainville (1904) 80.]

[Footnote 514: Liv. v. 34.]

[Footnote 515: Déchelette (1908-14) ii. 572, 573.]

[Footnote 516: Geer (1896). (1912).]

[Footnote 517: Sollas (1911) 395-397.]

[Footnote 518: Brooks (1921).]

[Footnote 519: Penck & Brückner (1909).]

[Footnote 520: Hall (1913) 15-30.]

[Footnote 521: Petrie (1906) ch. xii.]

[Footnote 522: Meyer (1904).]

[Footnote 523: Breasted (1912).]

[Footnote 524: Hall (1913) 25.]

[Footnote 525: Bachofen (1897).]

[Footnote 526: M’Lennan (1886) 195-246.]

[Footnote 527: Hartland (1921) 122-124.]

[Footnote 528: Rose (1911).]

[Footnote 529: Rose (1911) 279.]

[Footnote 530: Rose (1911) 283.]

[Footnote 531: Ridgeway (1901).]

[Footnote 532: Hartland (1921) 123.]

[Footnote 533: Murray (1907) 74.]

[Footnote 534: Rose (1920) 94.]