UPON THE SERIES OF PREHISTORIC CRANIA. 229 



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 

 round barrows of the bronze age lying peacefully in company with 

 brachycephali are indistinguishable from very many of the long 

 skulls found in long barrows together with implements of bone and 

 stone (see p. 527 of 'British Barrows'), with the conclusion drawn from 

 the Celtic and other words signifying metal to the effect that all 

 the Celts were in possession of metal from the first time when they 

 came into Europe, unless we agree to speak and think of the Stone 

 Age as Preceltic. In other words, it is of importance to keep in 

 mind that a division of skulls into skulls of a Silurian and skulls 

 of a Cimbric type is, probably, not coincident with that division 

 of the Celtic race into Gaels and Cymry which is, I suppose, the 

 division usually adopted by historians and literary antiquarians. 

 The race which used stone and bone implements may, so far as the 

 naturalist's investigations teach him, have spoken either a Turanian 

 or an Aryan tongue ; what he sees in their skulls and their sur- 

 roundings impresses him with the notion of an antiquity which 

 may have given time enough and to spare for the more or less 

 complete disappearance of more than one unwritten language. The 



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 modern German writers on this subject, with the distinguished exception 

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

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

 Dahlmann, and a monograph 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 writers Prichard and Latham, among 

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

 amongst Northern writers Munch and Nilsson. The craniographer will incline to the 

 Celtic hypothesis. 



