TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION D. DEPT. A.NTIIROPOLOGT. 611 



inbaWtc'd by the two uationalities are often distinguished iu old records as Goxcer 

 An<ilicana and Goiver Wallicana} But, I believe that the barriers between the 

 two peojoles have in modern times been considerably relaxed, and that there is at 

 the present day more or less intermixture of blood. 



Apart, however, from all foreign admixture, there is still in Glamorganshire, 

 especially in the outlying districts, a very large proportion of the population who may 

 be fairly regarded as typically Welsh. If we can strip off" all extraneous elements 

 which have been introduced by the modern settler and the medieval Fleming, 

 possibly also by the Norman baron and even the Roman soldier, we may eventually 

 lay bare for anthropological study the deep-lying stratum of the population — the 

 original Welsh element. What then are the ethnical relations of the typical man 

 of South Wales ? 



Nine people out of every ten to whom this question might be addressed would 

 unhesitatingly answer that the true Welsh are Celts or Kelts.'^ And they would 

 seek to justify their answer by a confident appeal to the AVelsh language. No one 

 has any doubt about the position of this language as a member of the Keltic 

 family. The Welsh and the Breton fall naturally together as living members of a 

 group of languages to which Professor Rhys applies the term Brythonic, a group 

 which also includes such fossil tongues as the old Cornish, the speech of the 

 Strathclyde Britons, and possibly the languages of the Picts and of the Gauls. 

 On the other hand, the Gaelic of Scotland, the Irish, and the Manx arrange them- 

 selves as naturally in another group, which Professor Rhys distingiushes as the 

 Goidelic branch of the Keltic stock. ^ But does it necessarily follow that all the 

 peoples who are closely linked together by speaking, or by having at some time 

 spoken, these Keltic languages, are as closely linked together by ties of blood ? 

 Great as the value of language unquestionably is as an aid to ethnological classi- 

 fication, are we quite safe in concluding that all the Keltic-speaking peoples are 

 one in race ? 



The answer to such a question must needs depend upon the sense in which the 

 anthropologist uses the word Kelt. History and tradition, philology and ethnology, 

 archaeology and craniology, have at different times given widely divergent defi- 

 nitions of the term. Sometimes the word has been used with such elasticity as to 

 cover a multitude of peoples who differ so widely one from another in physical 

 characteristics that if the hereditary persistence of such qualities counts for any- 

 thing, they cannot possibly be referred to a common stock. Sometimes, on the 

 other hand, the word has been so restricted iu its definition, that it has actually 

 excluded the most typical of all Kelts — the Gaulish Kelts of Cfesar. According 

 to one authority, the Kelt is short ; according to another tall : one ethnologist 

 defines him as being dark, another as fair ; this craniologist finds that he has a 

 long skull, while that one declares that his skull is short. It was no doubt this 

 ambiguity that led so keen an observer as Dr. Beddoe to remark, nearly fifteen 

 years ago, that ' Kelt and Keltic are terms which were usefid in their day, but 

 which have ceased to convey a distinct idea to the minds of modern students.' ■• 



' The History and Antiquities of Glamm-gamhire. By Thomas Nicholas, M.A. 

 1874, p. 47. 



- Whether this word sho\ild be written Celt or Kelt seems to be a matter of 

 scientific indifierence. Probably the balance of opinion among ethnologists is in 

 the direction of the former rendering. Nevertheless it must be borne in mind that the 

 word ' celt ' is so commonly used nowadays by writers on prehistoric anthropology 

 to designate an axe-head, or some such weapon, whether of metal or of stone, that it 

 is obviously desirable to make the difEerence between the archasological word and 

 the ethnological term as clear as possible. If ethnologists persist in writing 

 ' Celt,' the two words differ only in the magnitude of an initial, and when spoken 

 are absolutely indistinguishable. I shall therefore write, as a matter of expediency, 

 ' Kelt.' It may be true, as Mr. Knight Watson has pointed out, that there was 

 originally no justification for itsing the word 'celt' as the name of a weapon, but it 

 is too late in the day to attempt to oust so deeply-rooted a word from the vocabulary 

 of the archfeologists. 



' Lectures on Wehh PJdhlogy.' By John Rhys, M.A., 2nd edition, 1878, p. 15. 



* Mem. Anthrop. Soc, Lon., vol. ii. 1866, p. 348. 



E R 2 



