in vain for the traces of any Euskarian element in the Cymraeg. Our distinguished member, H.I.H. Prince Louis Lucien Bonaparte, perhaps the only philologist in this country who has a right to speak with authority on such a subject, has obligingly informed me that he knows of no connexion whatever between the two languages. Still, it must be remembered that the Iberian affinity of the Silures, suggested by the remark of Tacitus, does not necessarily mean Basque affinity. Some philologists have even denied that the Basques are Iberians.1 All that we seek at present to establish is this-that the dark Britons, represented by the tribe of Silures, although they came to be a Keltic-speaking people, were distinct in race from the fair Britons, and, therefore, in all likelihood were originally distinct in speech. Nor should it be forgotten that relics of a pre-Keltic nonAryan people have been detected in a few place-names in Wales. Thus, Professor Rhys is inclined to refer to this category such names as Menapia, Mona, and Mynwy 2—the last-named being a place (Monmouth) within the territory of the old Silures. On the whole, it seems to me safer to follow Professor Rolleston in speaking of the dark pre-Keltic element as Silurian rather than as Basque or as Iberian.3 There is, however, quite another quarter to which the anthropologist who is engaged in this investigation may turn with fair promise of reward. The late Dr. Thurnam, more than fifteen years ago, wrote a singularly suggestive paper "On the Two Principal Forms of Ancient British and Gaulish Skulls".4 The long-continued researches of this 1 "La Langue Ibérienne et la Langue Basque." Par M. Van Eys. Revue de Linguistique. July 1874. 2 "Lectures on Welsh Philology," 2nd ed., p. 181. 3 British Barrows, by Canon Greenwell and Professor Rolleston, p. 630. 4 Memoirs of the Anthrop. Soc. Lond., vol. i, 1865, p. 120; vol. iii, 1870, p. 41. eminent archæological anatomist led him to the conclusion that the oldest sepulchres of this country-the chambered and other long barrows which he explored in Wilts and Gloucestershire - invariably contained the remains of a dolichocephalic people, who were of short stature, and apparently were unacquainted with the use of metals. The absence of metal would alone raise a suspicion that these elongated tumuli were older than the round, conoidal, or bell-shaped barrows, which contain objects of bronze, if not of iron, with or without weapons of stone, and commonly associated with the remains of a taller brachycephalic people.1 Even before Dr. Thurnam forcibly pointed attention to this distinction, it had been independently observed by so experienced a barrow-opener as the late Mr. Bateman,2 whose researches were conducted in quite another part of the country-the district of the ancient Cornavii. Moreover, Professor Daniel Wilson's studies in Scotland had led him to conclude that the earliest population of Britain were dolichocephalic, and possessed, in fact, a form of skull which, from its boat-like shape, he termed kumbecephalic. should it be forgotten that as far back as 1844 the late Sir W. R. Wilde expressed his belief that in Ireland the Nor 1 It may be useful to remark that anthropologists speak of people as dolichocephalic, or long-headed, if the breadth of their skull bears to its length a ratio of less than 80 to 100. On the other hand, people are brachycephalic, or short-headed, when measurement shows that length : breadth 80 (or more): 100. In spite of the pleonasm, we occasionally speak of brachycephalic and dolichocephalic skulls. The terms "longheaded" and "short-headed" are, of course, always used to designate long-skulled and short-skulled people-never to designate a long or short face. It may seem puerile to add such a remark, yet non-anthropological people have occasionally described a man as long-headed when they merely meant long-visaged. 2 Ten Years' Diggings, 1861, p. 146. most ancient type of skull is a long skull, which he held to belong to a dark-complexioned people, probably aboriginal, who were succeeded by a fair, round-headed race.1 But while this succession of races was recognised by several observers, it remained for Dr. Thurnam to formulate the relation between the shape of the skull and that of the barrow, in a neat aphorism, which has become a standing dictum in anthropology: "Long barrows, long skulls; round barrows, round skulls; dolichotaphic barrows, dolichocephalic crania; brachytaphic barrows, brachy-cephalic crania." No doubt exceptional cases may occur in which round skulls have been found in long barrows, but these have generally been explained as being due to secondary interments. On the other hand, the occasional presence of long skulls in round barrows presents no difficulty, since no one supposes that the early dolichocephali were exterminated by the brachycephali, and it is, therefore, probable that during the bronze-using period, when round tumuli were in general use, the two peoples may have dwelt side by side, the older race being, perhaps, in a state of subjugation. It is not pretended that Thurnam's apophthegm has more than a local application. "This axiom", its author admitted, "is evidently not applicable, unless with considerable limitations, to France." Although it is here called an "axiom", it is by no means a self-evident proposition, the relation between the shape of the skull and the shape of the burialmound being purely arbitrary. The proposition which connects the two is simply the expression of the results of accumulated observations, and it is, of course, open to doubt whether the number of observations was sufficiently great to warrant the generalisation. But the only test of the validity of any induction lies in its verification when applied to fresh instances, and it is remarkable that when long barrows and 1 On the Ethnology of the Ancient Irish. chambered tumuli have since been opened in this country the evidence has tended in the main to confirm Dr. Thurnam's proposition; still, we must regard it only as the expression of a local custom, and not of a general truth. It is commonly believed that the brachycephali of the round barrows came in contact with the dolichocephali as an invading, and ultimately as a conquering, race. Not only were they armed with superior weapons-superior in so far as a metal axe is a better weapon than a stone axe-but they were a taller and more powerful people. Thurnam's measurements of femora led to the conclusion that the average height of the brachycephali was 5 feet 8.4 inches, while that of the long-headed men was only 5 feet 5.4 inches. Not only were they taller, but they were probably a fiercer and more warlike race. In the skulls from the round barrows the superciliary ridges are more prominent, the nasals diverge at a more abrupt angle, the cheek-bones are high, and the lower jaw projects, giving the face an aspect of ferocity, which contrasts unfavourably with the mild features of the earlier stone-using people. On the whole, then, the researches of archæological anatomists tend to prove that this country was tenanted in antehistoric or pre-Roman times by two peoples, who were ethnically distinct from each other. It is difficult to resist the temptation of applying this to the ethnogeny of Wales. Does it not seem probable that the early short race of longskulled, mild-featured, stone-using people may have been the ancestors of the swarthy Silurians of Tacitus; while the later tall race of round-skulled, rugged-featured, bronzeusing men may have represented the broad-headed, Kelticspeaking folk of history? At any rate, the evidence of craniology does not run counter to this hypothesis. For Dr. Beddoe's observations on head-forms in the West of 1 Mem. Anthrop. Soc. Lond., vol. iii, 1870, p. 73. England have shown that "heads which are ordinarily called brachycephalic belonged for the most part to individuals with light hair", while the short dark-haired people whom he examined were markedly dolichocephalic.1 At the same time, it must be admitted that his observations lend "no support to the view that the Keltic skull has been, or would be narrowed by an admixture of the Iberian type". It should not, however, be forgotten that the same observer, in referring to a collection of crania from the Basque country, preserved in Paris, says "the form of M. Broca's Basque crania was very much that of some modern Silurian heads".2 According to the view advocated by Thurnam we have a right to anticipate that the oldest skulls found in this country would be of dolichocephalous type; and such I believe to be actually the case. Dr. Barnard Davis, it is true, has stated in the Crania Britannica that the ancient British skull must be referred to the brachycephalic type; and such an induction was perfectly legitimate so long as the craniologist dealt only with skulls from the round barrows or from similar interments. But the long-barrow skulls examined by Professor Rolleston, and the Cissbury skulls recently studied by the same anatomist, are decidedly dolichocephalic, as also are all the early prehistoric skulls which have been found of late years in France. 3 It may naturally be asked whether the researches of archæologists in Wales lend any support to Thurnam's hypothesis. Nothing, I conceive, would be easier than to show that very material support has come from this quarter; but I have abstained, of set purpose, from introducing into this paper any remarks on the prehistoric archæology of 1 Mem. Anthrop. Soc. Lond., vol. ii, 1866, p. 350. 2 Ibid., p. 356. 3 "On the People of the Long Barrow Period," Journ. Anthrop. Inst., vol. v, 1876, p. 120. 4 Ibid., vol. vi, 1877, p. 20; vol. viii, 1879, p. 377. |