6 INTRODUCTION 
for their lines, a piece of sharpened iron for their hooks, thorn- 
sticks for their rods, and split grain for their bait,’’ be potent 
enough to produce a protagonist for the priority of the Rod, 
the boldest advocate would shrink from championing either 
the Spear or Net. The first mention c. goo B.c. (I know of 
none actually written before this date !), shows them, and the 
Rod, in general and simultaneous operation. 
From Crete shines out no guiding light. The débris re- 
covered from centres of the ‘Minoan’ civilisation yields 
frequent and in the main vivid pictures of fish, e.g. those on 
the Phaistos Disc (which is considered the earliest instance of 
printing in Europe at any rate) and the flying fish on glazed 
pottery from Knossos. But unfortunately neither in the 
Annual Reports of Sir Arthur Evans to the British School at 
Athens nor (he tells me) in his forthcoming book do modz 
piscandi obtain notice. 
In Greece, a champion of any single method would be 
sadly to seek. The Spear, the Net, the Line, and the Rod all 
occur in our earliest authority, Homer, and, curious to note, 
as a rule in similes. From the fact that the Spear finds 
mention but once, the Net twice, and the Line (with or without 
the Rod) thrice, a real enthusiast has deduced an argument for 
the priority of the last two over the Spear ! 
This short survey forces the conclusion that we cannot 
fix definitely which was the method adopted by the earliest 
historical fishermen. 
Before proceeding on our search for further data two points 
should be emphasised. First, the period covered even by the 
longest historical or semi-historical record counts but as a 
fraction of the time since geology and archeology prove Man 
to have existed on earth. 
Grant, if you will, the demand of the most exacting Egypto- 
logists or Sumerologists, to whom a thousand years are as 
nothing ; concede their postulated five or six thousand years ; 
of what account is one lustrum of millenniums when compared 
1 The recent discovery of the inscribed bone fragments in Honan apparently 
adds some six hundred years to the history, as apart from the legends of China, 
for v. 1500 B.C. instead of c. 900 B.c. seems now our starting point. See 
infra, Pp. 450. 
