black-eyed, and brown-complexioned races, generally identified with the
Basques or Euskarians, and with the Ligurians. The nation which resulted
from this mixture showed traces of both types, being sometimes blonde,
sometimes brunette; sometimes black-haired, sometimes red-haired, and
sometimes yellow-haired. Individuals of all these types are still found
in the undoubtedly Celtic portions of Britain, though the dark type
there unquestionably preponderates so far as numbers are concerned. It
is this mixed race of fair and dark people, of Aryan Celts with
non-Aryan Euskarians or Ligurians, which we usually describe as Celtic
in modern Britain, by contradistinction to the later wave of Teutonic
English.

Now, according to the evidence of the early historians, as interpreted
by Mr. Freeman and other authors (whose arguments we shall presently
examine), the English settlers in the greater part of South Britain
almost entirely exterminated the Celtic population. But if this be so,
how comes it that at the present day a large proportion of our people,
even in the east, belong to the dark and long-skulled type? The fact is
that upon this subject the historians are largely at variance with the
anthropologists; and as the historical evidence is weak and inferential,
while the anthropological evidence is strong and direct, there can be
very little doubt which we ought to accept. Professor Huxley [Essay "On
some Fixed Points in British Ethnography,"] has shown that the
melanochroic or dark type of Englishmen is identical in the shape of the
skull, the anatomical peculiarities, and the colour of skin, hair, and
eyes with that of the continent, which is undeniably Celtic in the wider
sense–that is to say, belonging to the primitive non-Teutonic race,
which spoke a Celtic language, and was composed of mixed Celtic,
Iberian, and Ligurian elements. Professor Phillips points out that in
Yorkshire, and especially in the plain of York, an essentially dark,