Far back in the history of Europe and of our own country—or rather, we
should say, in periods entirely pre-historic—it is now known that a
similar disappearance of a human race has taken place. Celt and Teuton,
we fancy, were the first occupiers of Europe,—but the case is not so. A
wave or waves of population had preceded even them; and as we dig down
into the soil beneath us, ever and anon we come upon strange and
startling traces of those primeval occupants of the land. In those
natural museums of the past, the caves and peat-bogs of Europe, the
keen-witted archæologists of present times are finding abundant relics
of a race dissimilar from all the human varieties of which written
history takes cognisance. The researches of Wilson among the peat-bogs
of the British Isles have brought to light traces of no less than two
distinct pre-Celtic races inhabiting the land,—one of which had the
skull of a singularly broad and short, square and compact form, while
the head of the other race was long and very narrow, or “boat-shaped.”
The exhumations of Retzius show that precisely similar races once
inhabited Scandinavia. The caves and ossuaries of Franconia and Upper
Saxony prove that in Central Europe, also, there were races before the
advent of the Celts; and the researches of Boucher de Perthes, amid the
alluvial stratifications of the river Somme, indicate a not less ancient
epoch for the cinerary urns, bones, and instruments of a primordial
people in France.
“Here,” says M. de Perthes, “we naturally inquire, who were these
mysterious primitive inhabitants of Gaul? We are told that this part
of Europe is of modern origin, or at least of recent population. Its
annals scarcely reach to twenty centuries, and even its traditions do
not exceed two thousand five hundred years. The various people who are
known to history as having occupied it—the Gauls, the Celts, the
Veneti, Ligurians, Iberians, Cimbrians, and Scythians have left no
vestiges to which we can assign that date. The traces of those
[originally] nomadic tribes who ravaged Gaul scarcely precede the
Christian era by a few centuries. Was Gaul, then, a desert, a
solitude, before this period? Was its sun less genial, or its soil
less fertile? Were not its hills as pleasant, and its plains and
valleys as ready for the harvest? Or, if men had not yet learned to
plough and sow, were not its rivers filled with fish, and its forests
with game? And, if the land abounded with everything calculated to
attract and support a population, why should it not have been
inhabited? The absence of great ruins, indeed, indicates that Gaul at
this period, and even much later, had not attained a great degree of
civilisation, nor been the seat of powerful kingdoms; but why should
it not have had its towns and villages?—or rather, why should it not,
like the steppes of Russia, the prairies and virgin forests of
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account