192 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES 



Danubian IV 



(bronze, ingot torques, knot-headed pins, 

 lock-rings) ...... 3000 B.C. 



If geologists and botanists can show good grounds for demanding an 

 enlargement and prolongation backward of the neolithic age, archaeological 

 chronology can be adjusted to meet theirs without violating Montelius' 

 axioms. Danubian I, admittedly the earliest neolithic culture in con- 

 tinental Europe, would still be limited by Tel Halaf. If the former have 

 to be dated to the sixth millennium, the latter can just as reasonably be 

 assigned a like antiquity. 



The foregoing dates are advanced only as extreme possibilities. The 

 Oriental analogies cited provide under axiom 4 only upper limits for the 

 corresponding period. It is not till the Late Bronze Age that we get a 

 terminus ante quem from our comparisons. But for the moment let us 

 adopt the maximal dates as a framework for comparing Asiatic and Euro- 

 pean cultures. How would Montelius' general view of the relations 

 between Europe and the Orient be affected by adopting the long chrono- 

 logy outlined here ? What happens to his fifth axiom if the Central 

 European Bronze Age began about 2800 B.C. ? 



By that date we should have the following picture of the tract we have 

 been surveying. We should see in Egypt and Lower Mesopotamia 

 populous cities, covering like Erech perhaps two square miles of area, 

 governed by a well-established organisation, emancipated from immediate 

 dependence on environmental conditions by extensive public works and 

 a rich technical equipment and regular far-flung commerce and all fully 

 literate. Then in Assyria and Syria come smaller cities, only slightly 

 less richly equipped and still at least semi-literate. Further afield in 

 Anatolia and peninsular Greece are fortified townships whose walls protect 

 a variety of specialised craftsmen so well served by regular commerce 

 that metal at least could be freely used for tools ; their citizens may already 

 need and use seals, but seem to be illiterate. Next, in the Balkans and 

 on the Hungarian plain, we find rustic townships occupied principally 

 by farmers. Their rural economy is advanced enough to support a truly 

 sedentary population, but virtually the sole outlet in industry for the 

 surplus is offered by metallurgical employments, and trade is so imper- 

 fectly organised that metal has to be reserved mainly for armaments. 

 The same picture would apply to Bohemia and southern Germany with 

 the important reservation that agriculture seems not to have advanced so 

 far as to allow the population to be really stable. Denmark and southern 

 Sweden are still frankly in the Stone Age. And still further north 

 food-gathering is the sole economy. 



Look back as many thousand years as may be necessary to reach 

 Danubian I times, which have been for this purpose equated with the 

 Tel Halaf period in the Fertile Crescent. In the Orient we see already 

 little townships permanently occupied by experienced farmers, comprising 

 already expert craftsmen and supplied by trade at least with obsidian. 

 In Crete and Thessaly too perhaps more self-sufficient farmers are still 

 applying sufficient science to their fields to be able to live permanently 

 on the same site. But beyond the Balkans nomadism reigns. The Koros 



