48 
seems to have belonged to it, were of Roman manufacture. Many simi- 
lar articles are to be found in the museums of Italy. The chariot of 
four wheels, ornamented with bronze trellis-work, is also most probably 
Roman, and M. de Bonstetten shows that it was a Roman custom to 
bury or burn shields, armour, chariots and harness, with the bodies of 
the illustrious dead: so Virgil— 
“ Hine alii spolia occisis derepta Latinis 
Conjiciunt igni, galeas, ensesque decoros, 
Frenaque, ferventesque rotas.”—£n., lib. xi. 
On the other hand, the ‘‘brassards,” as M. de Bonstetten termsthem, 
i. e. armlets, or arm protectors, of wood and bronze, the bronze collar, the 
diadem of gold, the necklace of hollow golden balls, and the rings ofam- 
ber, are evidently not Roman: nor do these tombs seem to have con- 
tained anything decidedly and unquestionably Celtic. 
The Baron de Bonstetten is, therefore, I think, fully justified in the 
conclusion that these tumuli are not of a high antiquity: the Greek 
eross found in Tomb X. shows them to have been subsequent to Christi- 
anity; their contents indicate a period of transition from the old civili- 
zation of the Roman Empire, to therudeand more barbarous manners of 
the feudal ages. He infers then that the Helveto or Gallo-Romans, are 
.the only people to whom we can attribute the tumuli of Anet. 
But a still more important conclusion he has omitted to draw from an 
examination of the contents of these sepulchres. It is evident that they 
at once refute the attractive theory of the Danish and some German anti- 
quaries, of a Stone, a Bronze, and an Iron period. In these tombs we 
find wood, iron, and bronze together. We find even protective armour 
for the body, of all these materials: and M. de Bonstetten mentions in one 
instance a flint, which he supposes to have been an amulet, but which 
was more probably one of those flint, spear, or arrow-heads socommonly 
found in Ireland. It is evident, therefore, that there is great danger of 
our being led to distort or falsify historical facts, 1f we suppose the ex- 
istence of a chronological period defined by the use of stone, another by 
the use of bronze, and a third by the use of iron. On this subject, 
however, I would refer you tothe able remarks made in this room by the 
late lamented John Mitchell Kemble, little more thana year ago, which 
have been printed in our Proceedings, and which I caused also to be 
printed in a separate form. In that able paper, the last production, 
alas! of its accomplished author, you will find also some valuable re- 
marks on the subject of ornamentation as a characteristic of race. The 
ornamentation of the articles found in the tumuli of Anet is all evidently 
of the same character, and strongly confirms the conclusion arrived at 
by M. de Bonstetten of their belonging to the Helveto or Gallo-Roman 
race. But I have already occupied so much time, that I must forbear 
making any further remarks on this subject, and I shall, therefore, con- 
tent myself with observing only that the Greek or Pelasgic people of 
Italy have left behind them bronze articles, with the same ornaments of 
alternate rows, composed of serrated lines, of circles, of lozenges, and of 
triangles, which form almost the exclusive style of ornament on the 
bronze remains found in the tombs of Anct, and that the same combi- 
