AUGUST 21, 1902] 
NATURE 391 
o 
interest far greater than that of any other possible dis- 
covery whatever in the archeological field.” The writer 
then proceeded to sketch briefly the position of Mycenzean 
civilisation in history, insisting more especially upon what 
is now a commonplace of archzological knowledge—the 
fact that “ the culture of classical Greece, as we know it, is 
but the second epoch of Greek civilisation. Classical Greece 
had a past, the true history of which had been half for- 
gotten, had heen preserved in confused and contradictory 
legends. The culture of the past had bloomed from end 
to end of the Greek world, in cities, some, like Athens or 
Knossos, of renown in classical as well as pree-classical 
days, others, like Mycenz and Tiryns, cities whose fame 
ceased to be when the Dorians entered Greece. This 
culture was bronze-using, and was, in fact, the Greek 
phase of the European culture of the Bronze Age, a 
phase earlier in date than the phases of Central and 
Northern Europe, and in all probability not only their 
forerunner, but to a great extent their forebear.” 
In Mycenzean discovery progress is swift, and the ideas 
ofone year are never precisely those of the year before ; and 
since these lines were penned the appearance of Prof. 
Ridgeway’s “Early Age of Greece” has caused many 
defenders of the usual view to look well to their armour. 
For many weighty reasons which cannot be discussed 
here, it does not, however, seem probable that the view 
that the Mycenzean culture was not only the forerunner, 
but the forebear of the European culture of the Bronze 
Age, will be hastily abandoned in favour of the interesting 
theory propounded by Prof. Ridgeway. The discoveries 
of the last two years have pushed back the existence of 
human civilisation of the highest and most developed 
type in the A®gean basin to so remote a date B.C. that 
the possibility of this culture having derived its origin 
from Central Europe is fast fading away; it is to 
Egypt, if anywhere, that we must look for the first 
impulses of A2gean culture, and it is to this 7Zgean cul- 
ture that we must look for the origins of the European 
civilisation of the Bronze Age. So that while it may be 
an exaggeration to say thatthe relation of the prehistoric 
civilisation of Greece to this general European culture is 
quite clear, it is none the less a mere affectation of 
reserve to imply that the nature of this relation is not, 
generally speaking, pretty clearly indicated by what 
evidence we have. The evidence points to the A. gean 
culture having been the forebear of the general European 
civilisation of the Bronze Age, of which it itself may be 
regarded as the Greek phase. 
Nodogma can be proclaimed as to the ethnic affinities 
of the people to whom this 42gean culture belonged. 
In “The Oldest’ Civilization of Greece,” pp. 105, 202, 
the present writer has essayed the opinion that ‘the 
Mycenzean culture had well begun before the arrival of 
the Aryan Hellenes” ; and we may, in fact, well hold 
that its originators belonged to that “ Mediterranean 
Race” of Sergi, which extended from Armenia to Spain. 
When, however, the fair-haired invaders from the north 
—the “Celts ” of Prof. Ridgeway—descended upon the 
4Egean world, it would’ seem that they took over the 
civilisation of their predecessors, over whom they hence- 
forth ruled and with whom they mingled, while giving 
them their Aryan language. So it is that “the whole of 
Greek culture from the solid rock of the Athenian 
acropolis up” is indeed one, for the civilisation of the 
Aryanised “ Hellene” was directly descended from that 
of the un-Aryan “ Pelasgian” of Knossos or Phaistos 
without any “very violent break.” Thus it is possible, 
without inconsistency, to write also that “the Mycenzean 
culture belonged primarily to Hellenes,” when 
one is not using the word “primarily” in the sense of 
time at all, and when, too, one has expressly, in order to 
make one’s meaning clear even to the most careless 
critic, inserted between the words “primarily” and “to 
Hellenes” the sentence (in brackets) “ xot entirely or 
NO. 1712, VOL. 66] 
necessarily originally” (“Oldest Civilization of Greece,” 
p. 104; not in italics in original). The sentence, “ the 
Mycenzean culture belonged primarily (but not entirely 
or necessarily originally) to Hellenes” cannot be made 
to disagree with that previously quoted to the effect that 
“the Mycenzean culture had well begun before the arrival 
of the Aryan Hellenes,” without suppressing the words 
within brackets, and thus suggesting a meaning for 
“primarily ” not intended by the author. 
The present writer holds, therefore, to his opinion, as 
expressed in “The Oldest Civilization of Greece,” that 
the AZgean culture belonged originally to the pre- 
Hellenic race or races, but that in all probability some 
of its most important developments took place among 
populations already “ Hellenised,” ¢.g. in Argolis ; ze. it 
“belonged primarily to Hellenes.” How far Cretan 
discovery may modify this position it is impossible as 
yet to say; in all probability, however, the modification 
will be in the direction of considerably reducing the 
probable connection of the Aryanised “ Hellenes” 
(Achaians) with, at any rate, the Cretan monuments of 
the “ Aigean” or early Mycenzan age, and in bringing 
the pree-Aryan, pre-Achaian population into greater 
prominence. Such a development has long been fore- 
told by Prof. Ridgeway; but it is not probable that 
his drastic proposition “No ‘Mycenzans’ were 
Achaians” will ever be accepted in its entirety. To 
him, however, the inception of the idea is due; the 
point on which one would be inclined to criticise him 
is his proposition that the Pelasgians were Aryans, which, 
since the work of Kretschmer and Sergi has appeared, 
seems an old-fashioned view. Following Kretschmer, 
the present writer has maintained the view that the 
primitive population of the A.gean basin was of 
“kleinasiatisch” race, and that this race was not 
Aryan, since Lycian, the typical “kleinasiatisch” 
language, and its cognate idioms, Carian, &c., are 
obviously not Aryan, ace Prof. Bugge and one or two 
other Scandinavian philologists who still maintain the 
opposite view. In Sfhinx, vol. ii. p. 120, the well- 
known veteran archzologist, Prof. Piehl, of Upsala, still 
holds the Scandinavian view, saying : 
““Nous savons, grace & Bugge, 4 Thomsen et a Torp, 
que cette langue [Lycian], trés-vraisemblablement, est 
dorigine aryenne bien authentique.” 
With all respect to Prof. Piehl, it, however, must be 
recorded that, except in Scandinavia, Kretschmer’s view 
seems to be now generally accepted, more especially 
since his philological results agree so remarkably well 
with those obtained by Sergi from craniological study. 
We shall return to the question of race later ; the above 
preliminary remarks are necessitated by the progress which 
has been made in Mycenzean study during the past year. 
In the present number of the “ Annual of the British 
School at Athens” Mr. Evans proceeds to describe the 
results of his further excavations at Knossos in 1901, 
when he was assisted by Dr. Duncan Mackenzie as 
excavator, and by Mr. D. T. Fyfe as architect. Mr. Fyfe 
has prepared the very clear and intelligible ground-plan 
of the palace which accompanies the memoir, and his 
services have no doubt been, generally speaking, of the 
greatest use to Mr, Evans, since nobody who has not 
visited Knossos can have much idea of the great amount 
of regular architectural, not to say engineering, work 
which has had to be carried out during the course of the 
excavations, consisting not only in the housing-over of 
the Throne Room (illustrated in NATURE, Ixiv. p. 14, 
Fig. 4), but in excavating, shoring-up and underpinning 
staircases, remains of upper stories, &c., especially in 
the vicinity of the Hall of the Colonnades (Plan, G Io). 
Mr. Hogarth, who in 1900 excavated the town-ruins, did 
not work at Knossos in 1901, but transferred himself to 
the eastern end of Crete, where he worked on the 
