although he never managed toWnish his promisedCrania Hibernica, pub-
lished some skulls in 1858 (Waddell 2005: 121). The same view was also used
by the craniologist and antiquarian Sir William Wilde (1815–76) who was
working in the same period (Morse 1999: 5–6; Waddell 2005: 131–6). Another
‘Crania’ book published in this period was that ofCrania Britannicain 1865
by John Thurnam (1810–73) and Joseph Bernard Davis (1801–81). It put
together data collected for more than a decade, results of excavations such as
those of Davis who as early as 1851 was digging barrows to collect skulls for
his racial studies. Interestingly, very much in tune with his time, his interests
had turned from local folklore, churches, cemeteries, and brass-rubbing to
digging barrows and collecting skulls (Stocking 1971: 374–5; 1968: 375;
1987: 66).
Whereas no racial connection between present and past was expected in
respect of the very earliest inhabitants of Europe, this was not the case for the
latest prehistoric periods. Thus, the protohistoric period was being claimed as
part of the national past. As well as Broca with the Celts in the quotation
above, Worsaae was an example of this. He concluded that in the Bronze Age
the inhabitants of Denmark were a Gothic tribe and that those living in
Scandinavia during the Iron Age could be regarded as the same people as
the present Swedes and Norwegians (Worsaae 1849: 144).
RACE AND LANGUAGEDuring the nineteenth century, race and language became two crucial—and
for the most part interrelated—notions in nationalist thought. A nation’s
common history and culture became central to the concept of nationalism.
Individual nations were increasingly seen as the products of nature, and
distinguished by character, race, and language. These were not seen as separ-
ate elements. Language was perceived as the conscious expression of racial
uniqueness, being the visible emblem which distinguished one race, that is,
one nation, from another (Kedourie 1966: 64). All this meant a change in the
deWnition of a nation. Individual rights and the sovereignty of the people
within the nation remained central to liberalism, especially that of the left, but
for all liberals the understanding of what the nation was signiWed a discussion
of its racial and linguistic origins. The rise of this type of nationalism, called
by experts ethnic or cultural nationalism (Chapter 1), changed politics for-
ever. It was no longer the case that only long-established states tried to
reinforce the sense of identity of their citizens by appealing to nationalism.
Now, there were also communities which, perceiving themselves to be
Liberal Revolutions (c. 1820–1860) 349