de luxe, the splendidly-embossed shields and the beautifullypainted vases, would be prized by barbarous tribes. At the present day we do not import our Sèvres or repoussée work, or beautiful enamels, into the Hudson Bay Territory, but merely those articles which are of daily use in that region.

There is evidence also that some of the bronze implements in the region north of the Alps were made upon the spot. Bars of tin have been discovered in the lake-dwellings of Switzerland* and Savoy,f and the moulds for making the celts in Ireland, Sussex, and Scandinavia; and in some cases along with large quantities of broken and imperfect bronze implements, which had been collected together for recasting. This would of course account for the bad workmanship of some of the bronze implements, which would be imperfect copies of those which had been imported.

The superior workmanship of the bronzes of Scandinavia and of the part of Germany bordering on the shores of the Baltic, remarked by Professor Nilsson, is probably due to the great trade in amber which was carried on in that region. The weapons and implements made in the South would naturally be exchanged for the amber which was highly prized both by the Phænicians and the Etruscans, and there would be but little demand for the imperfect copies made at home. We would therefore refer the unity of type manifested by the implements throughout France, Germany, Britain, and Scandinavia to their having been derived from one artistic centre, either directly or indirectly, while the local differences may be explained by slight modifications in the original designs made by the native bronze-smiths in each country.

There is also a very slender clue which eventually may lead to the knowledge of the race of men who derived their bronzeculture from the great metal-workers of the South. Our word • bronze'is, Mr. Howorth acutely remarks, derived from the Basque or Iberian broncea, Italian bronzo, Spanish bronce. It is well known that the Iberians occupied the peninsula to which they give their name during the time that the Phænicians were carrying on the tin and bronze trade, and they must therefore have been to a great extent a mining people. They also occupied a large portion of France, and, according to William von Humboldt, formed the substratum of the population of Western Europe generally. The dark-complexioned races in France, Ireland, and Wales, also the black Celts of Tacitus,' and the Silures of Cardigan, are identified by Professor Huxley

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

with the Iberians. Altogether the evidence is very satisfactory that France and Britain and Ireland were inhabited by the Iberians, who were overwhelmed and driven away into the hills and to the south by the Celtic invaders. It is therefore only natural to suppose that bronze was not merely known to the Spanish miners, but also to their kin on the north of the Pyrenees; and it becomes very probable that some, to say the least, of the pre-Celtic dwellers in Central and Northern Europe during the Bronze Age, were Iberians. Whether this be accepted or not, the Bronze Age north of the Alps and Pyrenees was essentially an age of commerce, during which the civilisation of the southern people gradually passed through the ordinary channels of trade. No coins have yet been found associated by any remains of the Bronze Age in Middle or Northern Europe; but that fact does not tell against the Phænicians having held any intercourse with the North, any more than the absence of sovereigns in Central Africa would imply the absence of British trade. In either case one could not expect to find coins. It implies, however, that the commerce of the Bronze Age was carried on in the regions under consideration by means of barter, and that a conventional and representative value had not been attached to any one current medium of exchange. It is worthy of note, however, that no coins have yet been discovered in Etruscan tombs.

We must now very briefly pass on to the Iron Age in Middle, Western, and Northern Europe; but the nearer we approach to the borders of history, the more fragmentary and unsatisfactory does the evidence, to be derived from those remains, become. Coins first make their appearance in the pre- -Roman Iron Age. Those of Marseilles have been discovered in an old battle-field, at Tiefenau, near Berne, along with a large number of objects made of iron, such as broken chariots, bits for horses, wheels, &c. Since Marseilles was founded B.C. 600, the coins must be later than that date, and probably before the conquest of Gaul by the Romans. Some of the villages in the Swiss lakes may also be assigned to the Iron Age; in that near La Têne, on the Lake of Neufchâtel, fifty iron swords, five axes, four knives, and twenty-three lances have been found, unaccompanied by a single weapon of bronze; nine coins also were found, of which one bears on the reverse the Gallic horned horse. Mr. Evans has shown that the Gauls had a coinage of their own in B.C. 300, while in Britain the coins make their appearance about 150 years later. It would, therefore, seem very probable that coins were used to a considerable extent during the Iron Age, and their style implies that they are

derived originally from the East and South—from Greece and Macedon, and not from Italy. Mr. Evans has in his possession a marvellous series of British gold coins, in which the passage from the highly finished Greek original is traced down to the almost meaningless emblems stamped on the rude copies.

The iron-using people buried their dead in tumuli, sometimes burning the corpse, and at others laying it at full length. Sometimes, as in some of the tombs round Stonehenge, they made use of the tumuli of the Bronze Age, so that after digging through the secondary interment of the one age, you come in the centre of the mound to that over which the mound was originally heaped. That they were, comparatively speaking, highly civilised, there can be no doubt. In Gaul, Cæsar tells us that they opposed the Roman armies in the field, with chariots and cavalry, and fought for a whole day with the Roman fleet off the coast of Brittany.

The actual date of the introduction of the use of iron into the arca north of the Alps and the Pyrenees cannot be satisfactorily ascertained; but it seems pretty clear that wherever the Romans came in contact with Gauls, or Britons, or German tribes, they found them armed with weapons of iron. The Scots, according to Tacitus,* used chariots and iron swords in the battle of the Grampians— enormes gladii sine mucrone.' The Celts of Gaul are stated by Diodorus Siculus † to have used iron-headed spears and coats of mail, and the Gauls who encountered the Roman arms in B.C. 222,4 were armed with soft iron swords, as well as at the time when Cæsar conquered their country. Sir John Lubbock thinks it probable that the commercial organisation which introduced bronze introduced also iron ; and it is very possible that the Phænician, Etruscan, and Greek traders may have brought in the art of reducing iron ore into the region where bronze had been previously used. And if from any cause or other the tin trade was interrupted, as it certainly must have been by the break-up of the Phænician and Etruscan power, to say nothing of the wars which must have happened from time to time between the tribes of France and Germany, the people cut off from the supply of tin must either have used copper or have been obliged to apply iron for those purposes to which they had applied bronze. This, certainly, may be one of the causes of its introduction; but at the same time it must be admitted that the patterns of the Iron Age differ from those of the Bronze, and the weapons are of

[blocks in formation]

a different character. Did the Celts, the conquerors of the Iberian race north of the Alps, invade Europe, bringing their iron weapons along with them from the East? The long sword, made for cutting rather than for thrusting, was certainly not derived from Greece or Italy, and it appears for the first time in the West in the hands of the Celts and the Germans. It is, by no means improbable that the civilisation of the Iron Age was in part introduced into Europe by the Celtic and Teutonic invaders from Central Asia,

We must now bring this review to a close. We have shown what important problems are opened up by prehistoric archeology, and how it throws light on the chaos which precedes our written records. Does it afford proof or disproof of the progression or degradation of the human race, as it is assumed to do by the advocates of those antagonistic theories? We hold that it does not. The area which it embraces is far too small for any generalisation of the kind. At the very time that stone and bone were the only materials known throughout Europe, it is very possible, and indeed very probable, that a higher civilisation existed elsewhere; and we have brought forward evidence to show that, in the later or Bronze Age of the North, the Etruscans, Phænicians, and Greeks were flourishing around the shores of the Mediterranean. Sir John Lubbock may possibly be correct in deducing the primeval savage state of man from a comparison of manners and customs of different races at the present day, but his conclusion is not affected in one way or the other by an appeal to archæology. We therefore leave this important question to be fought out by the ethnologists. Archäology merely tells us that in Europe there has been a steady progress in the usages and appliances of social life. Man first appeared on the scene as a savage, living by the chase. Then a race of shepherds and tillers of the earth come before us, the introducers of domestic animals into Europe; then the knowledge of bronze gradually crept northwards, and a commerce by barter sprang up; and lastly a knowledge of iron, and a commerce carried on by means of a coinage. Thus we are conducted gradually from the remote Geological Past to the borders of History in North and Central Europe.

Art. VII.--1. The Military Memorial. Translated from the

Frankfort Edition of Prince FREDERIC CHARLES's Essay,

• How to beat the French. London: 1860. 2. The Prussian Tactical Instructions for Grand Manæuvres.

Translated by Sir C. STAVELEY. London: 1870. 3. A Tactical Retrospect of 1866. Translated by Col. OUVRY,

C.B. London: 1870. 4. Entgegnung über die tacktische Rückblicke (a reply to the

• Tactical Retrospect'). Von Lieut.-Col. Von BRONSART.

Berlin : 1870. 5. Der Feldzug von 1870; vom Rhein bis vor Chalons. Von

G. von GLASENAPP. Berlin: Sept. 1870. IT T is now ten years since the question was publicly put to

Prussia by a Prussian—What will be our fate in a war with • France ?' Answered by Prince Frederic Charles himself in the private lecture in which it was uttered, question and answer went further, and produced impressions wider and deeper than he ever dreamed of. The Prince was then young, a favourite in his profession, and known to be sincerely attached to it. His utterances, once taken down, were handed from one admirer to another, until they came to be regarded as public property, and finally went forth to the world from the Frankfort press with a preface almost as noteworthy as the Essay itself. For the anonymous editor was one of those ardent believers in the future of Germany, who, democratic in principle, have found themselves swept away in the popular pressure after unity at any price. It is instructive at the present epoch to look back ten years and see working in this preface the two great currents which, often neutralising one another for the while, have, under the most daring statesmanship of modern times, been fused into one, and overflowed successively the various adversaries of Prussia with ruin. Much as such men have loved the progress of Liberalism, they have loved the unity of Germany more; and from the moment when it became apparent that the latter and more pressing object could only be ensured by Prussian domination, they have bowed their souls to its yoke without abandoning totally those hopes of the absorption of Prussian royalty in a Constitutional empire or German republic, which to the cool observer grow fainter and fainter as the policy of Berlin advances from triumph to triumph.

Count Bismarck had need of such men. He had need of

« VorigeDoorgaan »