632 GENERAL REMARKS 



the tribes who broug-ht bronze into England, with the fashion of 

 burning or burial in round as opposed to long barrows, may very 

 probably have been of the same stock as the Cimbri whom we 

 know from history. 



This division in this nomenclature is proposed entirely indepen- 

 dently of any consideration drawn either from philology or, to 

 borrow a phrase from the Triads, from the ' hazy ocean ' which they 

 and similar documentary traditions make up. As regards philo- 

 logical considerations, I apprehend that it may cost some trouble 

 to reconcile the fact that very many of the long skulls found in the 



kymrisch;' and Pricbard, whose other arguments do seem to me to deserve the 

 epithet * htnldtiglich,' adds to them, I. c. p. 104, ' the name of Cimbri, corresponding 

 and nearly identical with that of the Cymru or Cumri of Britain.' This latter name 

 he, further on, p. 168, says on the authority of Adelung, Mithridates, ii. 157, is not 

 altogether forgotten by the present Bretons. Professor Rhys, however, informs me 

 that ' the words " Cimbri " and " Kymry " are not related at all ; if " Kymry " were 

 translated into CiBsar's time, it would assume the form " Combroges," to be analysed 

 like " Allobroges," and meaning probably Compatriots. The word is unknown to the 

 Bretons, nor can it be traced on the other side of the Bristol Channel : so I am inclined 

 to think it was only adopted by the Welsh as their national name while under English 

 pressure. I do not mean by this to offer any opinion whatever on the question whether 

 the people called " Cimbri " were nearly related to the ancestors of the Welsh or not.' 

 At the meeting of the British Association already referred to, thinking it might be 

 of some consequence towards settling the much vexed question of the Germanic or 

 Celtic origin of the Cimbri as known to us from the time of Marius, I gave references 

 in parallel columns to the various more or less nearly contemporary writers who had 

 spoken of them as Germans or Celts respectively. These references I may reproduce 

 here. 



For the Celtic origin of the Cimbri, see For the German origin of the Cimbri, see 

 Cicero, De Oratore, ii. 266. Horace, Epod. xvi. 7. 



Sallust, Jugurtha, 114. Inscript. Ancyran. Tab. v. 16. 



Floras, iii. 3. Strabo, vii. 1.' 3. 



Appian, De Bell. 111. 4, Csesar, De Bell. Gall. i. 40. 



„ Bell. Civ. i. 29. Velleius Paterculus, ii. 12. 



iv. 2. „ ii. 19. 



Diodorus, v. 3. 2. Tacitus, Germania, 37. 



xiv. 114. „ Hist. iv. 73. 



Plutarch, Camillus, 15. Plutarch, Marius, 11. 



Dio Cassius, xliv. 4. 2. „ Crassus, 9. 



Justin, xxiv. 8. Pliny, iv. 28. 



Orosius, V. 16. Mela, iii. 3. 



Livy, Epitom. 77. Justin, 37. 4. 



Seneca ad Helv. 6. 

 Most of the modem German WTiters on this subject, with the distinguished exception 

 of Niebuhr (Kleinere Schriften, p. 383), claim the Cimbri as their kinsfolk. It may 

 bo sufficient to name Zeuss, D'Ukert, Grimm, Duncker (Orig. Germ. 79-92), and 

 Dahlmann, and a monogi-aph containing many references and other valuable matter 

 by Dr. Pallmann, Die Cimbern und Teutonen, Berlin, 1870. Baron de Belloguet 

 agrees with these writers; see Ethnogen. Gaul. iv. p. 87, 1873. For the Celtic origin of 

 Cimbri we have, with Niebuhr, among English wTiters Pricliard and Latham, among 

 French writers ThieiTv, H. Martin (Sur I'Ethnogenie Gauloise, iv. p. 89, 1873), and 

 amongst Northern writers Munch and Nilsson. The craniographcr will incline to tbe 

 Celtic hypothesis. 



