

1891.] Archeology and Ethnology. 677 
Tirynthe, and Orchomene, and saying that their civilization had 
become general in Greece at an epoch approximate with the seventh 
century B.c. He concluded with a rapid summary of art and industry 
since that time. 
Monsieur Montelius then spoke, and arranged himself solidly upon 
the side of Schliemann and against Boetticher. He had visited Italy, 
and had there seen what to him were indisputable traces of a town, 
—rather of several towns superposed. He expressed his belief that it 
might yet be found that the tomb of Mycénes and the palace of 
Tirynthe belonged to the age of bronze ; but he concluded with a com- 
‘pliment and expression of confidence to Dr. Schliemann that he had 
formed a veritable era in the study of preclassic civilization and 
archeology. 
M. J. de Morgan spoke of the antiquities found at Hissarlik by 
M. Schliemann. He declined to enter into the discussion of the 
differences between Dr. Schliemann and Capt. Boetticher. So far as 
concerned those differences, he was decidedly upon the side of Dr. 
Schliemann, and if he had any difference of opinion of his own with 
Dr. Schliemann, it was rather that from his knowledge and his excava- 
tions in the Armenian and Chaldean countries, and those farther to the 
east than that of Italy,—it was to say that he thought Dr. Schliemann 
had made the error of assigning too recent a date rather than too 
ancient a one. M. de Morgan recalled the numerous evidences of the 
knowledge of iron in Asia at times of high antiquity. The necropoles 
of Warka and Mougheir, in Chaldea, were at least thirty centuries 
B.c., and yet were in the beginning of the age of iron in that country. 
At 1700 B.C. the Egyptian generals returned from their campaigns 
in Asia bringing with them utensils of iron, to which they attached 
great value in view of the rarity of that metal in the valley of the Nile. 
At the beginning of the Assyrian empire iron had already become a 
metal in current usage throughout that part of Asia. M. de Morgan 
enumerated the evidences and indicated generally the locality of the 
people of which he spoke. ‘Now, said he, these people were in con- 
tact with the inhabitants of Troad, and therefore the latter ought to 
have had a knowledge of iron, and by reason, The evidence of their 
commerce and their contact with these people is undisputable, and 
according to all archeology and history they certainly had a knowl- 
edge of and acquaintance with iron. If the excavations made in the 
Troad or at Hissarlik contained no evidence of iron, it is because of 
one of two things: either the investigation has not been sufficient 
to obtain all the evidences which there existed, or else the epoch to 
