But there is another series of facts which goes further still to invalidate the belief in the existence of Kelts in Spain. It is this. _Instead of the Kelts of Iberia having been Kelts in the modern sense of the term, the Kelts of Gallia were Iberians._ This is an unfortunate circumstance. Writers, speakers, journalists, and orators, Ribbonmen and Orangemen, who neither know nor care much about the Natural History of Man, talk about the _Keltic_ stock, or the _Keltic_ race, with a boldness and fluency that, except in the case of the antagonist term _Anglo-Saxon_, we meet with nowhere else. To read some of the dissertations on Irish misgovernment, or Welsh dissent, one might fancy that an American of Pennsylvania was writing about the aboriginal Indians, or the enslaved negroes--so much is there made of race, and so familiar are even the non-ethnological part of the world with the term. Men know this when they know nothing else. Great, then, is the actual and practical currency and general recognition of the word; so great that its historical truth, and its theoretical propriety are matters of indifference. Be it ever so incorrect, the time for changing it has gone by. Nevertheless, I think (nay, I am sure) that the word is misapplied. I think, that though used to denominate the tribe and nations allied to the Gauls, it was, originally, no Gallic word--as little native as _Welsh_ is British. I also think that even the first populations to which it was applied were other than _Keltic_ in the modern sense of the term. I think, in short, that it was a word belonging to the Iberian language, applied, until the time of Cæsar at least, to Iberic populations. The name came from the Greeks of the Gulf of Lyons--the Greeks of Massilia, or of Emporia, more probably the former. Now, as there is express evidence that a little to the west of Marseilles the Ligurian and Iberian areas met, the likelihood of the word belonging to the latter language is considerable.