Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Wayne Hammond and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Caret (^) followed by character is a superscript character, if caret followed by characters in curly braces, all are superscript.
Text delimited by underscores is italics.
Text delimited by pound signs (#) is gesperrt.]
AUTHOR OF ‘A HISTORY OF THE INDIAN MUTINY’ ‘CAESAR’S CONQUEST OF GAUL,’ ETC.
‘There seems no human thought so primitive as to have lost its bearing on our own thought, nor so ancient as to have broken its connection with our own life’.--E. B. TYLOR.
PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD LONDON, EDINBURGH NEW YORK AND TORONTO
This book is in one sense a companion of my _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_; and much that was written in the preface of that volume is equally applicable here. The last three chapters of Part I, and the later articles in Part II, are intended to do for Britain what I formerly tried to do for Gaul; but whereas the main object was then to illustrate the conquest, and the opening chapter was merely introductory, my aim in these pages has been to tell the story of man’s life in our island from the earliest times in detail. What has been called ‘prehistory’ cannot be written without knowledge of archaeology; but from the historical standpoint archaeological details must be handled, not for their own sake, but only in so far as they illustrate the development of culture. The two books are constructed on the same principle: in this, as in the other, the second part is devoted to questions which could not properly be discussed in narrative or quasi-narrative chapters, though I am encouraged by the judgement of expert critics, British, American, and Continental, of _Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul_, to hope that general readers who are interested in these matters may not find the articles which deal with them tedious. Those on Stonehenge, Ictis, and the ethnology of Britain, although they controvert certain opinions which are commonly accepted, will, I hope, tend to place facts in their true light. Two articles deal with well-worn themes,--the identity of the Portus Itius, and the place of Caesar’s landing in Britain. These problems have been pronounced by eminent scholars, including Mommsen, to be insoluble; nevertheless, I venture to affirm that in both cases the inquiry has now been worked out to demonstration. Critics who may be disposed to regard this claim as arrogant or frivolous will, I trust, read the articles through before passing judgement upon them. The questions would have been settled long ago if any competent writer had bestowed upon them as much care as has been expended in investigating Hannibal’s passage over the Alps.