The Phocæan Greeks founded the colony of Marseilles; and it was not long before the parts along the coast, and to some distance inland, became imperfectly known. When Prometheus gives to Hercules the details of his travels westwards, he says that, “You” (Hercules) “shall reach the fearless people of the Ligyes, where, with all your bravery, you shall find no fault with their warlike vigour. It is ordained that you shall leave your arrows behind. But as all the country is soft, you shall be unable to find a stone. Then Zeus shall see you in distress, and pity you, and overshadow the land with a cloud, whence a storm of round stones shall rain down. With these you shall easily smite and pursue the army of the Ligyes.” Such is the gist of a quotation from a writer so early as Æschylus, in his drama of the “Prometheus Unbound,” as given by Strabo. These Ligyes are the Ligurians, better known as a people of Italy, and as the coastmen of the Gulf of Genoa. Southwards and eastwards they extended as far as the Arno, and westwards to the Rhone; where (as already stated) they came in contact with the Iberians. So that the ancient Ligurians were a population common to both Gaul and Italy, just as the Iberians were common to Gaul and Spain. Herodotus places Marseilles in the country of the Ligyes. The fact of this tract being known so much earlier than the interior of Gaul, known too to the Greeks who first, and more than others, used the term _Kelt_, confirms the view of its _non_-Gallic origin. At any rate, it makes it either Iberian or Ligurian, and, consequently, only so far _Keltic_ (in the modern sense of the term) as the Ligurians were _Keltæ_. This is the point now under notice. I think that the Ligurians _were_ Kelts. In the first place, the name seems to have a meaning in the Keltic tongue; since Prichard suggests that it may have been derived from _Llygwyr_,[5] which means in Welsh _coastman_. In my mind it is a _native_ name also; a point upon which Prichard expresses a doubt, since he writes that, “it does not prove that the people were Kelts, since the designation is one more likely to have been bestowed upon them by a neighbouring tribe than assumed by themselves.” Who, however, could have bestowed it? Scarcely any population of the interior, since it is _Greeks_ from whom we get it, and the _coast_ was the part with which they were chiefly acquainted. Had the name been a late one, and derived from Roman sources, Dr. Prichard’s inference would have been legitimate. As it is, however, we have nothing but Ligurians and Iberians from the Pyrenees to the Arno, and as it cannot be both Iberic and Keltic (_in the modern sense of the word_), it must, if Keltic, be Ligurian.