i68 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES 



of a single system all over the west and north of Europe, including Great 

 Britain, has greatly assisted the study of the Bronze Age in those regions. 



But contrast with this the attempts which are being made — not, I am 

 glad to say, without many protests — to unify the schools of painted pottery 

 so as to make a chain from Chalcolithic Sicily to China. The dates 

 are hopelessly incompatible over large sections of this immense area, the 

 civilisations have few if any points in common, and yet we are invited to 

 unify them on the sole basis of paint being used. It is even asserted in 

 so many words that it is improbable that the idea of applying paint to 

 pottery should arise independently in different centres. It might be 

 too dogmatic to say that this is utterly illogical, but it can certainly be 

 said that it is quite unconvincing. The discovery of paint is in itself 

 easy and inevitable, and once this medium is known it will naturally be 

 used for anything and everything. To paint every object in sight, from 

 his or her face to the furniture, the house, the shutters, the tables and 

 chairs, is surely the natural impulse of every homo sapiens, whether male 

 or female, from the earliest times to the present day. As for the fixing 

 of the colour on the pottery by firing, that is no discovery at all, for the 

 pottery has to be fired in any case, whether it is painted or not. 



We need a systematic study of this entire subject of the reasoning 

 that can and cannot be based on pottery. I have been able to touch on 

 only a few points, and shall be more than satisfied if I may have stimulated 

 someone to work the whole matter out more thoroughly. It cannot, 

 however, be done without a wide experience and without a very thorough 

 technological knowledge. 



And this leads me to make in conclusion the only suggestion that I 

 think need be made in regard to the training of the young archaeologists of 

 the coming generation. I do not believe that early specialisation in archaeo- 

 logical training would be wholesome — indeed I think it would probably 

 be rather harmful. As I mentally call over the roll of my most distin- 

 guished colleagues, some a little older and some a little younger than 

 myself, I am struck with the remarkable diversity of their background 

 and training. Several dozen potential professions and callings are 

 represented among them. But this diversity has probably been a real 

 source of strength. That classical scholars, historians, anthropologists, 

 geologists, lawyers, engineers, artists and many other types of mind should 

 focus from different angles on the same subjects has led to catholicity and 

 breadth. For it is not so important that an archaeologist should be an 

 expert in one subject as that he should be widely and well educated. But 

 with this premise once granted, I think that much time would be saved, 

 and much efficiency would be added, if the student at the beginning of 

 his archaeological career were to superimpose a year or so of intensive techno- 

 logical training on his more general education. We all know the saying that 

 a man does not really know about an object until he can make it. A technical 

 training in primitive handicrafts such as pottery-making, flint-chipping, 

 weaving, and the hammering, alloying and casting of metals, would give 

 him an insight which no mere reading or even handling of finished specimens 

 can give. We must all envy the rising generation its wonderful oppor- 

 tunities. I venture on this one small suggestion for its assistance. 



