FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59  
60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   >>   >|  
ORIGIN OF THE BRITONS.--KELTS OF GAUL.--THE BELGAE.--WHETHER KELTIC OR GERMAN.--EVIDENCE OF CAESAR.--ATTREBATES, BELGAE, REMI, DUROTRIGES AND MORINI, CHAUCI AND MENAPII. Of the two branches of the Keltic stock the British will be considered first, and that in respect to its origin. It is rare that the population of an island is without clear, definite, and not very distant affinities with that of the nearest part of the nearest continent. The Cingalese of Ceylon can be traced to India; the Sumatrans to the Malayan Peninsula; the Kurile Islanders to the Peninsula of Sagalin; the Guanches of Teneriffe to the coast of Barbary. The nearest approach to isolation is in the island of Madagascar, where the affinities are with Sumatra, the Moluccas and the Malay stock rather than with the opposite parts of Africa, the coasts of Mozambique and Zanguibar. But Madagascar has long been the great ethnological mystery. Iceland, too, was peopled from Scandinavia and not from Greenland. It is in Gaul, then, that we must look for the mother-country of Kelts; at least in the first instance, for Gaul is the nearest point--the white cliffs of Folkstone being within sight of the opposite shore. Yet (as an example of the extent to which one ethnological question depends upon another) the Gallic origin of the earliest Britons has been objected to. For a _Keltic_ population, indeed, it has been admitted to be the natural area; but we have seen that a population other and earlier than the Keltic has been inferred from the shape of the skulls, and other phenomena of the Stone period. Now for such a population as this, Jutland or Sleswick has been considered the more likely locality, since the skulls in question have been compared to those of the Laplanders and Finns; and, if this be true, the further north we carry the home of the British aborigines, the less we find it necessary to bring the Finn or Lap families southward. This reasoning is valid if the original fact of any _pre_-Keltic population be true. Those, however, who doubt the premises, have no need to refine upon the current notion of Gaul being the original home of the Britons. Gaul, then, is the ground from which we take our view of the great Keltic division of the human species in its integrity; for, hitherto, we have seen but the western offsets of it. That the country between the Seine and Garonne, corresponding with the provinces of Normandy, Brittany, Mai
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59  
60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
population
 

Keltic

 

nearest

 

country

 

affinities

 

island

 
Madagascar
 

opposite

 

ethnological

 

skulls


original

 

Peninsula

 

BELGAE

 

question

 
British
 

Britons

 

origin

 

considered

 

locality

 

admitted


Laplanders
 

phenomena

 

natural

 
compared
 
period
 

objected

 

earlier

 

inferred

 

Jutland

 

Sleswick


division

 

species

 

integrity

 

refine

 

current

 

notion

 

ground

 
hitherto
 

western

 

provinces


Normandy

 

Brittany

 
Garonne
 
offsets
 

families

 

aborigines

 
southward
 

earliest

 
premises
 

reasoning