No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Many years ago Professor J. L. Myres published a very suggestive paper on ‘The Early Pot-Fabrics of Asia Minor’, defining the areas characterized by black or red or white slip ware and endeavouring to correlate them with climatic conditions.
Much water, both clear and muddy, has flowed under the bridge since 1903 and we can now form some idea of Anatolian cultures in the third millennium B.C. We can recognize a Troadic area in the west, a group of pre-Hittite sites in the centre, a rather shadowy Cilician culture in the south, an equally vague culture in the Van district, and a very important group of sites in the Upper Euphrates valley and its tributary vales, a country populated in historic times by Subaraeans and other less important peoples.
One of the most recent contributions to the prehistory of Anatolia is provided by certain passages in Dr. Frankfort's Archaeology and the Sumerian Question, a most valuable and stimulating book; if I criticize one section of it I trust that it will be realized that I differ from him chiefly on certain emphases and stresses, and admire the treatise in general as much as any of his readers.
page 211 note 1 Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 1903, p. 368.
page 211 note 2 Frankfort, , Archaeology and the Sumerian Question, pp. 17 and 18 Google Scholar.
page 211 note 3 ‘Niveaux III et II’, cf. M.D.P. XX. 100, 101 Google Scholar; L'Anthropologie, XL. 227 Google Scholar; Childe, , New Light on the Most Ancient East, p. 240 and figs. 89, 90Google Scholar.
page 212 note 1 Frankfort, l.c., p. 57.
page 213 note 1 Garstang, , Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, I, 1908, 114–17Google Scholar; Mallowan in the same journal, XX. 161.
page 213 note 2 Frankfort, l.c., p. 32, and Studies in Early Pottery of the Near East, II, pp. 177, 178 and fig. 21Google Scholar.
page 213 note 3 Prähistorische Zeitschrift, XIX (1928), 280–304 Google Scholar.
page 213 note 4 Frankfort, l.c., p. 31, note 4.
page 213 note 5 Garstang, l.c.
page 213 note 6 Macalister, , Gezer, II. 137 Google Scholar.
page 213 note 7 Peet, and Loat, , The Cemeteries of Abydos, III, pl. XII, fig. 4Google Scholar; Frankfort, , Studies in Early Pottery of the Near East, I. 107–11 and pl. X, b. 2Google Scholar.
page 213 note 8 Blegen, in American Journal of Archaeology, XXXVIII, No. 2 (1934), 225 and 226 Google Scholar; Lamb, and Hutchinson, in Annual of the British School at Athens, XXV. 22–4Google Scholar.
page 214 note 1 Schmidt, , Anatolia through the Ages, p. 85, Fig. 124Google Scholar.
page 214 note 2 This date, which is not the one usually found in general works of reference, I owe to Mr. Sidney Smith; he has also very kindly criticized the rough draft of this article, but is not responsible for any of the statements I make.
page 215 note 1 See Schmidt, in Tepe Hissar (Museum Journal, XXIII, No. 4, 367)Google Scholar.
page 215 note 2 Frankfort, l.c., pp. 57-63 and Table III.
page 215 note 3 This is an argument (but not a conclusive one) against dating the Persian bucchero as late as 2000.
page 215 note 4 Frankfort, l.c., p. 38.
page 215 note 5 Schliemann's Sammlung, No. 6147; see also Schliemann, Ilios, figs. 796, 797.
page 216 note 1 Frankfort, l.c., pl. III.
page 216 note 2 Or 2800 B.C. according to the system followed.
page 216 note 3 Museum Journal, 1933, XXIII, No. 4, 323–453 Google Scholar.
page 216 note 4 New Light on the Most Ancient East, pp. 263, 264.
page 216 note 5 Childe, l.c., recounts the resemblances but the differences are at least equally striking.
page 216 note 6 Illustrated London News, July 15th, 1933.
page 216 note 7 Bulletin of American Institute for Persian Art and Archaeology, II, No. 1 bis, March 1932.
page 216 note 8 Museum Journal, XXIII, No. 4, p. 367 Google Scholar, Tepe Hissar by E. F. Schmidt.
page 216 note 9 It resembles the Cypriote daggers in that, the handle is round in section, not square like those of the Trojan daggers with hooked tang, Tepe Hissar, l.c., pl. CIII, No. H 1040.
page 216 note 10 Museum Journal, l.c., pl. CIV, Nos. H 1168-71 and Schliemann's Sammlung No. 6401 (where it is strangely assigned to the ‘Einzelfunde’, though Schliemann himself clearly states its association with No. 6133 of Treasure O).
page 216 note 11 Museum Journal, l.c., pl. CIV, No. H 585, with which compare and contrast Schliemann's Sammlung No. 6404.
page 217 note 1 Schmidt in Tepe Hissar, l.c., p. 414 and pl. CXXX b.
page 217 note 2 Compare H 452 and 775 with U 9004 and 17926, H 166 with U 15313, H 867 with U 11484.
page 217 note 3 Museum Journal, l.c., pl. CXVIII, No. H 168.
page 217 note 4 Speiser, , Museum Journal, XXIII, No. 3, 249–77, pls. XLVIII-LIII and LXIX-LXXIGoogle Scholar.
page 217 note 5 Speiser, l.c., p. 276.
page 217 note 6 Childe, , New Light on the Most Ancient East p. 260 Google Scholar.
page 218 note 1 Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, XVIII. 109 Google Scholar.
page 218 note 2 Liverpool Annals, &c., XX. 163 and pls. XLIX, LGoogle Scholar.
page 218 note 3 So Mr. Smith informs me.
page 218 note 4 In strata XIII to X with sporadic survivals as late as Warka IV. ‘Jordan: Erster, zweiter, usw., vorläufiger Bericht über … Uruk.’
page 218 note 5 Sir Aurel Stein, Huxley Memorial Lecture for 1934.
page 218 note 6 Marshall Mackay, &c., Mohenjo Daro and the Indus Civilization.
page 218 note 7 Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, XX. 164 Google Scholar.
page 218 note 8 Hall, Cent. Supplement J.R.A.S., pls. XV, No. 9, and XVI; most of the pottery comes from ‘an alluvial layer’ in a mound near Muhammadabad, but some sherds are assigned to Tuz.
page 218 note 9 By Uruk I mean, of course, Frankfort's Uruk period, i.e. Uruk XIII-IV.
page 218 note 10 K. Bittel, Prähistorische Forschung in Kleinasien, a very sound book which was not available to me until my article was in proof; he gives a short chronology for Alishar and dates the beginning of the Copper Age at 3000 B.c. for that site.
page 219 note 1 Smith suggests imported.
page 219 note 2 Childe, l.c., pls. III b, v b, and p. 239 for a bibliography of the specialists.
page 219 note 3 W. Junker, Bericht über die Grabungen der Akad. d. Wissenschaft, in Wien auf den Friedhöfen von E. Kubanieh-Sud, Winter 1910-11.
page 219 note 4 Gjerstad, , Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus, p. 5 Google Scholar.
page 219 note 5 Mém. de la Del. en Perse, VIII. 82 and 93.
page 219 note 6 D.P.M. VIII. 82.
page 219 note 7 Childe, , Ancient Egypt, 03-June 1933, pp. 9, 10 Google Scholar.
page 219 note 8 Childe, a letter, which I gratefully acknowledge here.
page 220 note 1 Archiv für Orientforschung, V (1928–1929), 139, and VII (1931), 100-12Google Scholar; see also Woolley, Royal Tombs, and Landsberger, , Orientalische Literatur zeitung, XXXIV. 115–36Google Scholar.
page 220 note 2 Bronzezeitliche und Früheisenzeitliche Chronologie, vol. iii, passim.
page 220 note 3 See Ancient Egypt, 1931, p. 1 Google Scholar.
page 220 note 4 Burkitt and Childe, Chronological Table of Prehistory (Antiquity, June 1932).
page 220 note 5 New Light on the Most Ancient East, p. 156.
page 220 note 6 Childe, l.c., p. 226.
page 221 note 1 Speiser, , American Journal of Archaeology, 1933, p. 454 Google Scholar.
page 221 note 2 Allbright, Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, XII, 1932 Google Scholar.
page 221 note 3 Speiser, l.c., p. 271.
page 221 note 4 Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, XVIII. 108, 109 Google Scholar; Speiser seems to be unaware of the evidence from Ashur unless his note is even more cryptic than he confesses it to be (Museum Journal, l.c., p. 274 footnote 32).