EATJ.] NILSSON'S THEOEY. 73 



lays considerable stress on two curious vase-carriages, one found in Sweden 

 and the other in Mecklenburg, which certainly appear ta have been very 

 like the 'vases' made for Solomon's temple, and described in the first Book 

 of Kings. Finally, he believes that the use of war-chariots, the practice of 

 reaping close to the ear, and a certain method of fishing, are all evidences 

 of Phoenician intercourse. 



" Professor Nilsson is so great an authority, as an archaeologist his 

 labors have contributed so much to place the science on a sound basis, that 

 his opinions are deserving of the most careful consideration. Nor can they 

 fairly be judged b}^ the very short abstract which has been given above, as 

 many of his arguments must be followed in detail before they can be prop- 

 erly appreciated. That the PhcEnicians have left their traces in Norway is, 

 however, in my opinion, all that can fairly be deduced from the facts on 

 which he relies, even if we attribute to them all the significance claimed for 

 them by him. Further evidence is required before it would be safe to con- 

 nect them with the bronze age. As regards the smallness of the hands, we 

 must remember that Hindoos share this peculiarity with Egyptians. This 

 character is therefore not less reconcilable with an Indo-European than 

 with a Phoenician origin of the bronze-age civihzation. 



" There are three strong objections to the theory so ably advocated 

 by Professor Nilsson. The first is the character of the ornamentation on 

 the bronze weapons and implements. This almost always consists of geo- 

 metrical figures, and we rarely, if ever, find upon them representations of 

 animals or plants ; while on the ornamented shields, etc., described by 

 Homer, as well as in the decoration of Solomon's temple, animals and 

 plants were abundantly represented. Secondly, the burial-customs of 

 the Phoenicians differed altogether from those of the bronze age, and 

 although it may be said that those who attribute the presence of bronze in 

 Northern and Western Europe to Phoenician conuuerce, do not necessarily, 

 on that account, assume that the population of those countries became Phoe- 

 nician, still in this case the hypothesis explains the presence of bronze, but 

 not tlie bronze age-, of which the use of bronze, though the most striking, 

 is by no means the only characteristic. Thirdly, the J'hoenicians, as far as 

 we know them, were well acquainted with the use of iron ; in Homer we 



