It is increased by the circumstance of two-thirds, if not more, of the Keltic portion of Gaul being Iberian. Posidonius places the centre of the Keltic country in Provence, near the spot where the Roman settlement of Narbo was built: an Iberian locality. The Kelts of Herodotus are in the neighbourhood of the _city_ called _Pyrene_; a word which carries us as far westward as the Pyrenees, although its meaning is different. As far as they extended beyond the present provinces of Roussillon and Languedoc, they extended _westwards_; beyond--according to Herodotus--the Pillars of Hercules, and as far as the frontier of the extreme Kynetæ. Aristotle knew the true meaning of the word Pyrene, _i.e._, that it denoted a range of mountains; and he also called Pyrene “a mountain of Keltica.” By the time of Cæsar, however, a great number of undoubted Gauls were included under the name _Celtæ_: in other words, the Iberian name for an Iberian population was first adopted by the Greeks as the name for _all_ the inhabitants of south-western Gaul, and it was then extended by the Romans so as to include all the populations of Gallia except the Belgæ and Aquitanians. The word _Celtæ_ also passed for a native name--“_ipsorum_ lingua _Celtæ, nostra Galli_ appellantur.” Upon this Prichard reasonably remarks, that Cæsar would have written more accurately had he stated that the people whom the Greeks called Κἑλται were _Galli_ in the eyes of a _Roman_. But the Greek form for _Galli_ is Γἁλ-αται, a form suspiciously like Κἑλτ-αι. I admit that this engenders a difficulty, since it shows the possibility of the two words being the same. At the same time it can be explained. The ατ in Γἁλ-αται is non-radical. It is the sign of the plural number, as it is in Irish at the present moment; whereas the τ in Κελτ-αι is a part of the root. And now I have given the additional reason for believing that the so-called Kelts of Spain were no Kelts at all in the modern sense of the word, but only Iberians; and I further suggest the likelihood of the word meaning _mountaineer_, or something like it, in which case the Kelts of South Gaul must be supposed to be (as they are made by Herodotus and Aristotle) the Pyrenean Iberians, the Celtiberi and Celtici being also the Highlanders of the great central range of Spain, of Gallicia, and of Alemtejo. This, however, is only a suggestion. Perhaps the point is not very important. Whether we look to the amount of their civilization, to their national temper as shown in the defence of their independence, or to the extent to which they contributed to the literature of the Latin language, there are no very striking differences between the Gaul and the Iberian. Personal heroes like Viriathus and Vercingetorix occur on both sides; whilst Gaul resisted Cæsar by instances of endurance behind stone walls scarcely inferior to the display of obstinate valour at Numantia.