196 



NA TURE 



[December 28, 1899 



upon to explain the whole course of the development of 

 early civilisation, probably rests on no firmer bases than 

 do the similar gospels which profess to elucidate man's 

 early history by means of a comparison of his languages 

 or the varying shapes of his skull. 



The statements in the latter part of Mr. Myres' intro- 

 duction are, then, purely hypothetical. Many are prob- 

 able enough, but they are not proven historical facts. 

 Take, for instance, his reference to the date of the 

 Mycenaean (he prefers the hideous and hybrid form 

 Mykenacan) period of Greek culture. Now it seems 

 very probable that the art of the Mycenaean period, 

 marking the culminating point of the Bronze Age 

 culture of Greece, came to an end in Greece proper in 

 consequence of the overthrow of the Achaian hegemony 

 by the Dorians, who very possibly introduced the use of 

 iron and the rude " Geometrical " style of art into Greece 

 about 1000-800 B.C. But this is only a theory. And 

 neither this theory nor the fact that Mycensan pottery 

 has been found in the remains of King Khuenaten's city 

 at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt (date about 1430 B.C.) justify 

 Mr. Myres in saying (p. 20) that " the Mykencean Age is 

 placed between 1700 and 900 B C. by the find-groups in 

 Egypt, Rhodes and Mykenae," although it is quite true that 

 " this date agrees with the best Greek tradition." All we 

 can say is that the Mycenaean Age apparently goes back 

 to at least 1430 B.C., and probably earlier. That it ended 

 in Greece proper about 800. (not 900) B.C. seems very 

 probable, but that it continued in the always backward 

 and conservative island of Cyprus till the beginning of 

 the seventh century at latest seems to be shown by the 

 new discoveries at Kurion and Enkomi, where, in con- 

 junction with Myceneean remains of a debased type, 

 Babylonian cylinders of the eighth century have been 

 found. Mr. Myres falls foul of this hypothesis (p. 20), as 

 was to have been expected. 



In some respects the catalogue is not quite up-to-date. 

 It is a year or two since Prof. Petrie's theory of a " New 

 Race" of " Libyans" was given up, and the true position 

 of the " New Race" remains as those of the prehistoric 

 Egyptians was pointed out by M. de Morgan. Yet in 

 a book published in 1899 we read (p. 16) of 



"the Libyan race, discovered in 1895 by Prof. Flinders 

 Petrie in the settlements and tombs at Ballas and 

 Nagdda . . . this civilisation, which fills the gap between 

 the sixth and the eleventh dynasty . . .," &c. 



The gap between these dynasties covers % the period 

 3500-3000 B.C. : the remains from Ballas and Nag^da 

 are those of the late Neolithic or "^neolithic" 

 periods in Egypt, and most certainly date long before 

 4500 B.C. It is a pity that Mr. Myres did not even at 

 the eleventh hour insert a paragraph in his list of corri- 

 genda noting this fact. 



Prof. Petrie connected this " Libyan " culture with the 

 early civilisation of Palestine, which he ascribed to the 

 Amorites, of whom we know nothing more than their 

 name. So Mr. Myres talks of a " Libyo-Amorite cul- 

 ture" (p. 17). Prof. Petrie also closely connected the 

 prae-Mycen^an stage of southern European civilisation 

 withthe " Libyo-Amorite culture." But this connection, 

 Mr. Myres hesitates to accept, although he admits re- 

 semblances of pottery-technique, &c., between the two. 

 NO. 1574, VOL. 61] 



An acceptance of this theory means now an acceptance 

 of the idea that the pne- Mycenaean stage of Greek culture 

 goes back to at least 5000 years B.C., and that it was at 

 that time closely connected with the primitive civilis- 

 ation of Egypt. It is difficult to imagine how this 

 connection can be maintained to have ever existed. The 

 famous copper sword which was found in the prehistoric 

 tomb 836 at Nagdda is of late prae-Mycenaean type 

 (" quasi- Mykenaean," testeyix. Myres, who also claims it 

 as especially Cyprian in style), and so probably dates 

 after 2000 B.C., while the things with which it was found 

 belonged to the half-savage ancestors of the Egyptians of 

 the first dynasty. This is an example of the uncertain- 

 ties of the archaeological method generally. The sword 

 proves no connection. We are by no means inclined to 

 grant the contention that the pree- Mycenaean culture 

 may go back to an indefinite period B.C., and that such 

 swords may have been in use as well 5000 as 2000 B.C. 

 And the other evidence does not allow us to date even 

 the earliest remains of theprae-Mycenican age, the lowest 

 towns of Hissarlik and Athens, a day earlier than 2500 

 B.C., so that the prehistoric Egyptian and prehistoric 

 Greek cultures cannot be regarded as contemporaneous. 

 Both were primitive, half-savage ; hence the analogies 

 between their artistic methods. To argue a contem- 

 porary connection from such analogies is impossible. 



And no such connection can be shown to have existed 

 by way of Libya : we cannot say that there is any- 

 thing particularly Libyan about the prehistoric Egyptian 

 pottery, &c., because we have not the slightest idea of 

 what early Libyan pottery was like. In fact, the " New 

 Race " objects were dubbed " Libyan " on account of 

 their curiously isolated and strange appearance when 

 placed chronologically between two well-defined periods 

 of the regular Egyptian civilisation : it was foreign and 

 barbarous, why not Libyan? (In much the same way 

 every inexplicable object found in Egypt used to be called 

 "Ethiopian," the remains of Mycenaean culture were 

 dubbed Phoenician or Karian, and those of the Assyriz- 

 ing civilisation of Asia Minor received the now somewhat 

 discredited appellation " Hittite." It is quite true that 

 unless some theory is made to account for inexplicable 

 phenomena, little progress is possible. But such theories 

 ought never to be, as they so often are, regarded as 

 dogmas to be persistently maintained in spite of con- 

 troverting evidence.) These inexplicable objects being 

 then " Libyan," people began to think about Lake 

 Tritonis and its legends, about the alliance of the 

 Greek "Akaiuasha" (who may quite possibly have 

 been Achaians) with the Libyans {n.b. as late as 

 1250 B.C.), and so the " prae- Mycenaean " culture of 

 the north-eastern coasts of the Mediterranean was 

 connected with the " New Race " culture through 

 the medium of Libya. Even now that vye know that the 

 " New Race" culture is at least two thousand years older 

 than Prof. Petrie's first dating, this Libyan-Greek con- 

 nection seems to be maintained, although there is no 

 need to suppose that the remains from Ballas and 

 Nagdda are Libyan, or anything else than primitive 

 Egyptian. Even those yellow-haired Kabyles from 

 Ballas and Nagdda have been shown by the unen- 

 thusiastic Virchow to owe their Indo-Germanic locks to 

 the action of the salt in the soil ! 



