diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/52664-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/52664-0.txt | 7213 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 7213 deletions
diff --git a/old/52664-0.txt b/old/52664-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index e859106..0000000 --- a/old/52664-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,7213 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, Prehistoric Men, by Robert J. (Robert John) -Braidwood, Illustrated by Susan T. Richert - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - - -Title: Prehistoric Men - - -Author: Robert J. (Robert John) Braidwood - - - -Release Date: July 28, 2016 [eBook #52664] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PREHISTORIC MEN*** - - -E-text prepared by Stephen Hutcheson, Dave Morgan, Charlie Howard, and the -Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) - - - -Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this - file which includes the original illustrations. - See 52664-h.htm or 52664-h.zip: - (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/52664/52664-h/52664-h.htm) - or - (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/52664/52664-h.zip) - - -Transcriber's note: - - Some characters might not display in this UTF-8 text - version. If so, the reader should consult the HTML - version referred to above. One example of this might - occur in the second paragraph under "Choppers and - Adze-like Tools", page 46, which contains the phrase - “an adze cutting edge is ∠ shaped”. The symbol before - “shaped” looks like a sharply-italicized sans-serif “L”. - Devices that cannot display that symbol may substitute - a question mark, a square, or other symbol. - - - - - -PREHISTORIC MEN - -by - -ROBERT J. BRAIDWOOD - -Research Associate, Old World Prehistory - -Professor -Oriental Institute and Department of Anthropology -University of Chicago - -Drawings by Susan T. Richert - - - - - - - -[Illustration] - -Chicago Natural History Museum -Popular Series -Anthropology, Number 37 - -Third Edition Issued in Co-operation with -The Oriental Institute, The University of Chicago - -Edited by Lillian A. Ross - -Printed in the United States of America -by Chicago Natural History Museum Press - -Copyright 1948, 1951, and 1957 by Chicago Natural History Museum - -First edition 1948 -Second edition 1951 -Third edition 1957 -Fourth edition 1959 - - - - -Preface - -[Illustration] - - -Like the writing of most professional archeologists, mine has been -confined to so-called learned papers. Good, bad, or indifferent, these -papers were in a jargon that only my colleagues and a few advanced -students could understand. Hence, when I was asked to do this little -book, I soon found it extremely difficult to say what I meant in simple -fashion. The style is new to me, but I hope the reader will not find it -forced or pedantic; at least I have done my very best to tell the story -simply and clearly. - -Many friends have aided in the preparation of the book. The whimsical -charm of Miss Susan Richert’s illustrations add enormously to the -spirit I wanted. She gave freely of her own time on the drawings and -in planning the book with me. My colleagues at the University of -Chicago, especially Professor Wilton M. Krogman (now of the University -of Pennsylvania), and also Mrs. Linda Braidwood, Associate of the -Oriental Institute, and Professors Fay-Cooper Cole and Sol Tax, of -the Department of Anthropology, gave me counsel in matters bearing on -their special fields, and the Department of Anthropology bore some of -the expense of the illustrations. From Mrs. Irma Hunter and Mr. Arnold -Maremont, who are not archeologists at all and have only an intelligent -layman’s notion of archeology, I had sound advice on how best to tell -the story. I am deeply indebted to all these friends. - -While I was preparing the second edition, I had the great fortune -to be able to rework the third chapter with Professor Sherwood L. -Washburn, now of the Department of Anthropology of the University of -California, and the fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters with Professor -Hallum L. Movius, Jr., of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University. The -book has gained greatly in accuracy thereby. In matters of dating, -Professor Movius and the indications of Professor W. F. Libby’s Carbon -14 chronology project have both encouraged me to choose the lowest -dates now current for the events of the Pleistocene Ice Age. There is -still no certain way of fixing a direct chronology for most of the -Pleistocene, but Professor Libby’s method appears very promising for -its end range and for proto-historic dates. In any case, this book -names “periods,” and new dates may be written in against mine, if new -and better dating systems appear. - -I wish to thank Dr. Clifford C. Gregg, Director of Chicago Natural -History Museum, for the opportunity to publish this book. My old -friend, Dr. Paul S. Martin, Chief Curator in the Department of -Anthropology, asked me to undertake the job and inspired me to complete -it. I am also indebted to Miss Lillian A. Ross, Associate Editor of -Scientific Publications, and to Mr. George I. Quimby, Curator of -Exhibits in Anthropology, for all the time they have given me in -getting the manuscript into proper shape. - - ROBERT J. BRAIDWOOD - _June 15, 1950_ - - - - -Preface to the Third Edition - - -In preparing the enlarged third edition, many of the above mentioned -friends have again helped me. I have picked the brains of Professor F. -Clark Howell of the Department of Anthropology of the University of -Chicago in reworking the earlier chapters, and he was very patient in -the matter, which I sincerely appreciate. - -All of Mrs. Susan Richert Allen’s original drawings appear, but a few -necessary corrections have been made in some of the charts and some new -drawings have been added by Mr. John Pfiffner, Staff Artist, Chicago -Natural History Museum. - - ROBERT J. BRAIDWOOD - _March 1, 1959_ - - - - -Contents - - - PAGE - How We Learn about Prehistoric Men 7 - - The Changing World in Which Prehistoric Men Lived 17 - - Prehistoric Men Themselves 22 - - Cultural Beginnings 38 - - More Evidence of Culture 56 - - Early Moderns 70 - - End and Prelude 92 - - The First Revolution 121 - - The Conquest of Civilization 144 - - End of Prehistory 162 - - Summary 176 - - List of Books 180 - - Index 184 - - - - -HOW WE LEARN about Prehistoric Men - -[Illustration] - - -Prehistory means the time before written history began. Actually, more -than 99 per cent of man’s story is prehistory. Man is at least half a -million years old, but he did not begin to write history (or to write -anything) until about 5,000 years ago. - -The men who lived in prehistoric times left us no history books, but -they did unintentionally leave a record of their presence and their way -of life. This record is studied and interpreted by different kinds of -scientists. - - -SCIENTISTS WHO FIND OUT ABOUT PREHISTORIC MEN - -The scientists who study the bones and teeth and any other parts -they find of the bodies of prehistoric men, are called _physical -anthropologists_. Physical anthropologists are trained, much like -doctors, to know all about the human body. They study living people, -too; they know more about the biological facts of human “races” than -anybody else. If the police find a badly decayed body in a trunk, -they ask a physical anthropologist to tell them what the person -originally looked like. The physical anthropologists who specialize in -prehistoric men work with fossils, so they are sometimes called _human -paleontologists_. - - -ARCHEOLOGISTS - -There is a kind of scientist who studies the things that prehistoric -men made and did. Such a scientist is called an _archeologist_. It is -the archeologist’s business to look for the stone and metal tools, the -pottery, the graves, and the caves or huts of the men who lived before -history began. - -But there is more to archeology than just looking for things. In -Professor V. Gordon Childe’s words, archeology “furnishes a sort of -history of human activity, provided always that the actions have -produced concrete results and left recognizable material traces.” You -will see that there are at least three points in what Childe says: - - 1. The archeologists have to find the traces of things left behind by - ancient man, and - - 2. Only a few objects may be found, for most of these were probably - too soft or too breakable to last through the years. However, - - 3. The archeologist must use whatever he can find to tell a story--to - make a “sort of history”--from the objects and living-places and - graves that have escaped destruction. - -What I mean is this: Let us say you are walking through a dump yard, -and you find a rusty old spark plug. If you want to think about what -the spark plug means, you quickly remember that it is a part of an -automobile motor. This tells you something about the man who threw -the spark plug on the dump. He either had an automobile, or he knew -or lived near someone who did. He can’t have lived so very long ago, -you’ll remember, because spark plugs and automobiles are only about -sixty years old. - -When you think about the old spark plug in this way you have -just been making the beginnings of what we call an archeological -_interpretation_; you have been making the spark plug tell a story. -It is the same way with the man-made things we archeologists find -and put in museums. Usually, only a few of these objects are pretty -to look at; but each of them has some sort of story to tell. Making -the interpretation of his finds is the most important part of the -archeologist’s job. It is the way he gets at the “sort of history of -human activity” which is expected of archeology. - - -SOME OTHER SCIENTISTS - -There are many other scientists who help the archeologist and the -physical anthropologist find out about prehistoric men. The geologists -help us tell the age of the rocks or caves or gravel beds in which -human bones or man-made objects are found. There are other scientists -with names which all begin with “paleo” (the Greek word for “old”). The -_paleontologists_ study fossil animals. There are also, for example, -such scientists as _paleobotanists_ and _paleoclimatologists_, who -study ancient plants and climates. These scientists help us to know -the kinds of animals and plants that were living in prehistoric times -and so could be used for food by ancient man; what the weather was -like; and whether there were glaciers. Also, when I tell you that -prehistoric men did not appear until long after the great dinosaurs had -disappeared, I go on the say-so of the paleontologists. They know that -fossils of men and of dinosaurs are not found in the same geological -period. The dinosaur fossils come in early periods, the fossils of men -much later. - -Since World War II even the atomic scientists have been helping the -archeologists. By testing the amount of radioactivity left in charcoal, -wood, or other vegetable matter obtained from archeological sites, they -have been able to date the sites. Shell has been used also, and even -the hair of Egyptian mummies. The dates of geological and climatic -events have also been discovered. Some of this work has been done from -drillings taken from the bottom of the sea. - -This dating by radioactivity has considerably shortened the dates which -the archeologists used to give. If you find that some of the dates -I give here are more recent than the dates you see in other books -on prehistory, it is because I am using one of the new lower dating -systems. - -[Illustration: RADIOCARBON CHART - -The rate of disappearance of radioactivity as time passes.[1]] - - [1] It is important that the limitations of the radioactive carbon - “dating” system be held in mind. As the statistics involved in - the system are used, there are two chances in three that the - “date” of the sample falls within the range given as plus or - minus an added number of years. For example, the “date” for the - Jarmo village (see chart), given as 6750 ± 200 B.C., really - means that there are only two chances in three that the real - date of the charcoal sampled fell between 6950 and 6550 B.C. - We have also begun to suspect that there are ways in which the - samples themselves may have become “contaminated,” either on - the early or on the late side. We now tend to be suspicious of - single radioactive carbon determinations, or of determinations - from one site alone. But as a fabric of consistent - determinations for several or more sites of one archeological - period, we gain confidence in the “dates.” - - -HOW THE SCIENTISTS FIND OUT - -So far, this chapter has been mainly about the people who find out -about prehistoric men. We also need a word about _how_ they find out. - -All our finds came by accident until about a hundred years ago. Men -digging wells, or digging in caves for fertilizer, often turned up -ancient swords or pots or stone arrowheads. People also found some odd -pieces of stone that didn’t look like natural forms, but they also -didn’t look like any known tool. As a result, the people who found them -gave them queer names; for example, “thunderbolts.” The people thought -the strange stones came to earth as bolts of lightning. We know now -that these strange stones were prehistoric stone tools. - -Many important finds still come to us by accident. In 1935, a British -dentist, A. T. Marston, found the first of two fragments of a very -important fossil human skull, in a gravel pit at Swanscombe, on the -River Thames, England. He had to wait nine months, until the face of -the gravel pit had been dug eight yards farther back, before the second -fragment appeared. They fitted! Then, twenty years later, still another -piece appeared. In 1928 workmen who were blasting out rock for the -breakwater in the port of Haifa began to notice flint tools. Thus the -story of cave men on Mount Carmel, in Palestine, began to be known. - -Planned archeological digging is only about a century old. Even before -this, however, a few men realized the significance of objects they dug -from the ground; one of these early archeologists was our own Thomas -Jefferson. The first real mound-digger was a German grocer’s clerk, -Heinrich Schliemann. Schliemann made a fortune as a merchant, first -in Europe and then in the California gold-rush of 1849. He became an -American citizen. Then he retired and had both money and time to test -an old idea of his. He believed that the heroes of ancient Troy and -Mycenae were once real Trojans and Greeks. He proved it by going to -Turkey and Greece and digging up the remains of both cities. - -Schliemann had the great good fortune to find rich and spectacular -treasures, and he also had the common sense to keep notes and make -descriptions of what he found. He proved beyond doubt that many ancient -city mounds can be _stratified_. This means that there may be the -remains of many towns in a mound, one above another, like layers in a -cake. - -You might like to have an idea of how mounds come to be in layers. -The original settlers may have chosen the spot because it had a good -spring and there were good fertile lands nearby, or perhaps because -it was close to some road or river or harbor. These settlers probably -built their town of stone and mud-brick. Finally, something would have -happened to the town--a flood, or a burning, or a raid by enemies--and -the walls of the houses would have fallen in or would have melted down -as mud in the rain. Nothing would have remained but the mud and debris -of a low mound of _one_ layer. - -The second settlers would have wanted the spot for the same reasons -the first settlers did--good water, land, and roads. Also, the second -settlers would have found a nice low mound to build their houses on, -a protection from floods. But again, something would finally have -happened to the second town, and the walls of _its_ houses would have -come tumbling down. This makes the _second_ layer. And so on.... - -In Syria I once had the good fortune to dig on a large mound that had -no less than fifteen layers. Also, most of the layers were thick, and -there were signs of rebuilding and repairs within each layer. The mound -was more than a hundred feet high. In each layer, the building material -used had been a soft, unbaked mud-brick, and most of the debris -consisted of fallen or rain-melted mud from these mud-bricks. - -This idea of _stratification_, like the cake layers, was already a -familiar one to the geologists by Schliemann’s time. They could show -that their lowest layer of rock was oldest or earliest, and that the -overlying layers became more recent as one moved upward. Schliemann’s -digging proved the same thing at Troy. His first (lowest and earliest) -city had at least nine layers above it; he thought that the second -layer contained the remains of Homer’s Troy. We now know that Homeric -Troy was layer VIIa from the bottom; also, we count eleven layers or -sub-layers in total. - -Schliemann’s work marks the beginnings of modern archeology. Scholars -soon set out to dig on ancient sites, from Egypt to Central America. - - -ARCHEOLOGICAL INFORMATION - -As time went on, the study of archeological materials--found either -by accident or by digging on purpose--began to show certain things. -Archeologists began to get ideas as to the kinds of objects that -belonged together. If you compared a mail-order catalogue of 1890 with -one of today, you would see a lot of differences. If you really studied -the two catalogues hard, you would also begin to see that certain -objects “go together.” Horseshoes and metal buggy tires and pieces of -harness would begin to fit into a picture with certain kinds of coal -stoves and furniture and china dishes and kerosene lamps. Our friend -the spark plug, and radios and electric refrigerators and light bulbs -would fit into a picture with different kinds of furniture and dishes -and tools. You won’t be old enough to remember the kind of hats that -women wore in 1890, but you’ve probably seen pictures of them, and you -know very well they couldn’t be worn with the fashions of today. - -This is one of the ways that archeologists study their materials. -The various tools and weapons and jewelry, the pottery, the kinds -of houses, and even the ways of burying the dead tend to fit into -pictures. Some archeologists call all of the things that go together to -make such a picture an _assemblage_. The assemblage of the first layer -of Schliemann’s Troy was as different from that of the seventh layer as -our 1900 mail-order catalogue is from the one of today. - -The archeologists who came after Schliemann began to notice other -things and to compare them with occurrences in modern times. The -idea that people will buy better mousetraps goes back into very -ancient times. Today, if we make good automobiles or radios, we can -sell some of them in Turkey or even in Timbuktu. This means that a -few present-day types of American automobiles and radios form part -of present-day “assemblages” in both Turkey and Timbuktu. The total -present-day “assemblage” of Turkey is quite different from that of -Timbuktu or that of America, but they have at least some automobiles -and some radios in common. - -Now these automobiles and radios will eventually wear out. Let us -suppose we could go to some remote part of Turkey or to Timbuktu in a -dream. We don’t know what the date is, in our dream, but we see all -sorts of strange things and ways of living in both places. Nobody -tells us what the date is. But suddenly we see a 1936 Ford; so we -know that in our dream it has to be at least the year 1936, and only -as many years after that as we could reasonably expect a Ford to keep -in running order. The Ford would probably break down in twenty years’ -time, so the Turkish or Timbuktu “assemblage” we’re seeing in our dream -has to date at about A.D. 1936-56. - -Archeologists not only “date” their ancient materials in this way; they -also see over what distances and between which peoples trading was -done. It turns out that there was a good deal of trading in ancient -times, probably all on a barter and exchange basis. - - -EVERYTHING BEGINS TO FIT TOGETHER - -Now we need to pull these ideas all together and see the complicated -structure the archeologists can build with their materials. - -Even the earliest archeologists soon found that there was a very long -range of prehistoric time which would yield only very simple things. -For this very long early part of prehistory, there was little to be -found but the flint tools which wandering, hunting and gathering -people made, and the bones of the wild animals they ate. Toward the -end of prehistoric time there was a general settling down with the -coming of agriculture, and all sorts of new things began to be made. -Archeologists soon got a general notion of what ought to appear with -what. Thus, it would upset a French prehistorian digging at the bottom -of a very early cave if he found a fine bronze sword, just as much as -it would upset him if he found a beer bottle. The people of his very -early cave layer simply could not have made bronze swords, which came -later, just as do beer bottles. Some accidental disturbance of the -layers of his cave must have happened. - -With any luck, archeologists do their digging in a layered, stratified -site. They find the remains of everything that would last through -time, in several different layers. They know that the assemblage in -the bottom layer was laid down earlier than the assemblage in the next -layer above, and so on up to the topmost layer, which is the latest. -They look at the results of other “digs” and find that some other -archeologist 900 miles away has found ax-heads in his lowest layer, -exactly like the ax-heads of their fifth layer. This means that their -fifth layer must have been lived in at about the same time as was the -first layer in the site 200 miles away. It also may mean that the -people who lived in the two layers knew and traded with each other. Or -it could mean that they didn’t necessarily know each other, but simply -that both traded with a third group at about the same time. - -You can see that the more we dig and find, the more clearly the main -facts begin to stand out. We begin to be more sure of which people -lived at the same time, which earlier and which later. We begin to -know who traded with whom, and which peoples seemed to live off by -themselves. We begin to find enough skeletons in burials so that the -physical anthropologists can tell us what the people looked like. We -get animal bones, and a paleontologist may tell us they are all bones -of wild animals; or he may tell us that some or most of the bones are -those of domesticated animals, for instance, sheep or cattle, and -therefore the people must have kept herds. - -More important than anything else--as our structure grows more -complicated and our materials increase--is the fact that “a sort -of history of human activity” does begin to appear. The habits or -traditions that men formed in the making of their tools and in the -ways they did things, begin to stand out for us. How characteristic -were these habits and traditions? What areas did they spread over? -How long did they last? We watch the different tools and the traces -of the way things were done--how the burials were arranged, what -the living-places were like, and so on. We wonder about the people -themselves, for the traces of habits and traditions are useful to us -only as clues to the men who once had them. So we ask the physical -anthropologists about the skeletons that we found in the burials. The -physical anthropologists tell us about the anatomy and the similarities -and differences which the skeletons show when compared with other -skeletons. The physical anthropologists are even working on a -method--chemical tests of the bones--that will enable them to discover -what the blood-type may have been. One thing is sure. We have never -found a group of skeletons so absolutely similar among themselves--so -cast from a single mould, so to speak--that we could claim to have a -“pure” race. I am sure we never shall. - -We become particularly interested in any signs of change--when new -materials and tool types and ways of doing things replace old ones. We -watch for signs of social change and progress in one way or another. - -We must do all this without one word of written history to aid us. -Everything we are concerned with goes back to the time _before_ men -learned to write. That is the prehistorian’s job--to find out what -happened before history began. - - - - -THE CHANGING WORLD in which Prehistoric Men Lived - -[Illustration] - - -Mankind, we’ll say, is at least a half million years old. It is very -hard to understand how long a time half a million years really is. -If we were to compare this whole length of time to one day, we’d get -something like this: The present time is midnight, and Jesus was -born just five minutes and thirty-six seconds ago. Earliest history -began less than fifteen minutes ago. Everything before 11:45 was in -prehistoric time. - -Or maybe we can grasp the length of time better in terms of -generations. As you know, primitive peoples tend to marry and have -children rather early in life. So suppose we say that twenty years -will make an average generation. At this rate there would be 25,000 -generations in a half-million years. But our United States is much less -than ten generations old, twenty-five generations take us back before -the time of Columbus, Julius Caesar was alive just 100 generations ago, -David was king of Israel less than 150 generations ago, 250 generations -take us back to the beginning of written history. And there were 24,750 -generations of men before written history began! - -I should probably tell you that there is a new method of prehistoric -dating which would cut the earliest dates in my reckoning almost -in half. Dr. Cesare Emiliani, combining radioactive (C14) and -chemical (oxygen isotope) methods in the study of deep-sea borings, -has developed a system which would lower the total range of human -prehistory to about 300,000 years. The system is still too new to have -had general examination and testing. Hence, I have not used it in this -book; it would mainly affect the dates earlier than 25,000 years ago. - - -CHANGES IN ENVIRONMENT - -The earth probably hasn’t changed much in the last 5,000 years (250 -generations). Men have built things on its surface and dug into it and -drawn boundaries on maps of it, but the places where rivers, lakes, -seas, and mountains now stand have changed very little. - -In earlier times the earth looked very different. Geologists call the -last great geological period the _Pleistocene_. It began somewhere -between a half million and a million years ago, and was a time of great -changes. Sometimes we call it the Ice Age, for in the Pleistocene -there were at least three or four times when large areas of earth -were covered with glaciers. The reason for my uncertainty is that -while there seem to have been four major mountain or alpine phases of -glaciation, there may only have been three general continental phases -in the Old World.[2] - - [2] This is a complicated affair and I do not want to bother you - with its details. Both the alpine and the continental ice sheets - seem to have had minor fluctuations during their _main_ phases, - and the advances of the later phases destroyed many of the - traces of the earlier phases. The general textbooks have tended - to follow the names and numbers established for the Alps early - in this century by two German geologists. I will not bother you - with the names, but there were _four_ major phases. It is the - second of these alpine phases which seems to fit the traces of - the earliest of the great continental glaciations. In this book, - I will use the four-part system, since it is the most familiar, - but will add the word _alpine_ so you may remember to make the - transition to the continental system if you wish to do so. - -Glaciers are great sheets of ice, sometimes over a thousand feet -thick, which are now known only in Greenland and Antarctica and in -high mountains. During several of the glacial periods in the Ice Age, -the glaciers covered most of Canada and the northern United States and -reached down to southern England and France in Europe. Smaller ice -sheets sat like caps on the Rockies, the Alps, and the Himalayas. The -continental glaciation only happened north of the equator, however, so -remember that “Ice Age” is only half true. - -As you know, the amount of water on and about the earth does not vary. -These large glaciers contained millions of tons of water frozen into -ice. Because so much water was frozen and contained in the glaciers, -the water level of lakes and oceans was lowered. Flooded areas were -drained and appeared as dry land. There were times in the Ice Age when -there was no English Channel, so that England was not an island, and a -land bridge at the Dardanelles probably divided the Mediterranean from -the Black Sea. - -A very important thing for people living during the time of a -glaciation was the region adjacent to the glacier. They could not, of -course, live on the ice itself. The questions would be how close could -they live to it, and how would they have had to change their way of -life to do so. - - -GLACIERS CHANGE THE WEATHER - -Great sheets of ice change the weather. When the front of a glacier -stood at Milwaukee, the weather must have been bitterly cold in -Chicago. The climate of the whole world would have been different, and -you can see how animals and men would have been forced to move from one -place to another in search of food and warmth. - -On the other hand, it looks as if only a minor proportion of the whole -Ice Age was really taken up by times of glaciation. In between came -the _interglacial_ periods. During these times the climate around -Chicago was as warm as it is now, and sometimes even warmer. It may -interest you to know that the last great glacier melted away less than -10,000 years ago. Professor Ernst Antevs thinks we may be living in an -interglacial period and that the Ice Age may not be over yet. So if you -want to make a killing in real estate for your several hundred times -great-grandchildren, you might buy some land in the Arizona desert or -the Sahara. - -We do not yet know just why the glaciers appeared and disappeared, as -they did. It surely had something to do with an increase in rainfall -and a fall in temperature. It probably also had to do with a general -tendency for the land to rise at the beginning of the Pleistocene. We -know there was some mountain-building at that time. Hence, rain-bearing -winds nourished the rising and cooler uplands with snow. An increase -in all three of these factors--if they came together--would only have -needed to be slight. But exactly why this happened we do not know. - -The reason I tell you about the glaciers is simply to remind you of the -changing world in which prehistoric men lived. Their surroundings--the -animals and plants they used for food, and the weather they had to -protect themselves from--were always changing. On the other hand, this -change happened over so long a period of time and was so slow that -individual people could not have noticed it. Glaciers, about which they -probably knew nothing, moved in hundreds of miles to the north of them. -The people must simply have wandered ever more southward in search -of the plants and animals on which they lived. Or some men may have -stayed where they were and learned to hunt different animals and eat -different foods. Prehistoric men had to keep adapting themselves to new -environments and those who were most adaptive were most successful. - - -OTHER CHANGES - -Changes took place in the men themselves as well as in the ways they -lived. As time went on, they made better tools and weapons. Then, too, -we begin to find signs of how they started thinking of other things -than food and the tools to get it with. We find that they painted on -the walls of caves, and decorated their tools; we find that they buried -their dead. - -At about the time when the last great glacier was finally melting away, -men in the Near East made the first basic change in human economy. -They began to plant grain, and they learned to raise and herd certain -animals. This meant that they could store food in granaries and “on the -hoof” against the bad times of the year. This first really basic change -in man’s way of living has been called the “food-producing revolution.” -By the time it happened, a modern kind of climate was beginning. Men -had already grown to look as they do now. Know-how in ways of living -had developed and progressed, slowly but surely, up to a point. It was -impossible for men to go beyond that point if they only hunted and -fished and gathered wild foods. Once the basic change was made--once -the food-producing revolution became effective--technology leaped ahead -and civilization and written history soon began. - - - - -Prehistoric Men THEMSELVES - -[Illustration] - - -DO WE KNOW WHERE MAN ORIGINATED? - -For a long time some scientists thought the “cradle of mankind” was in -central Asia. Other scientists insisted it was in Africa, and still -others said it might have been in Europe. Actually, we don’t know -where it was. We don’t even know that there was only _one_ “cradle.” -If we had to choose a “cradle” at this moment, we would probably say -Africa. But the southern portions of Asia and Europe may also have been -included in the general area. The scene of the early development of -mankind was certainly the Old World. It is pretty certain men didn’t -reach North or South America until almost the end of the Ice Age--had -they done so earlier we would certainly have found some trace of them -by now. - -The earliest tools we have yet found come from central and south -Africa. By the dating system I’m using, these tools must be over -500,000 years old. There are now reports that a few such early tools -have been found--at the Sterkfontein cave in South Africa--along with -the bones of small fossil men called “australopithecines.” - -Not all scientists would agree that the australopithecines were “men,” -or would agree that the tools were made by the australopithecines -themselves. For these sticklers, the earliest bones of men come from -the island of Java. The date would be about 450,000 years ago. So far, -we have not yet found the tools which we suppose these earliest men in -the Far East must have made. - -Let me say it another way. How old are the earliest traces of men we -now have? Over half a million years. This was a time when the first -alpine glaciation was happening in the north. What has been found so -far? The tools which the men of those times made, in different parts -of Africa. It is now fairly generally agreed that the “men” who made -the tools were the australopithecines. There is also a more “man-like” -jawbone at Kanam in Kenya, but its find-spot has been questioned. The -next earliest bones we have were found in Java, and they may be almost -a hundred thousand years younger than the earliest African finds. We -haven’t yet found the tools of these early Javanese. Our knowledge of -tool-using in Africa spreads quickly as time goes on: soon after the -appearance of tools in the south we shall have them from as far north -as Algeria. - -Very soon after the earliest Javanese come the bones of slightly more -developed people in Java, and the jawbone of a man who once lived in -what is now Germany. The same general glacial beds which yielded the -later Javanese bones and the German jawbone also include tools. These -finds come from the time of the second alpine glaciation. - -So this is the situation. By the time of the end of the second alpine -or first continental glaciation (say 400,000 years ago) we have traces -of men from the extremes of the more southerly portions of the Old -World--South Africa, eastern Asia, and western Europe. There are also -some traces of men in the middle ground. In fact, Professor Franz -Weidenreich believed that creatures who were the immediate ancestors -of men had already spread over Europe, Africa, and Asia by the time -the Ice Age began. We certainly have no reason to disbelieve this, but -fortunate accidents of discovery have not yet given us the evidence to -prove it. - - -MEN AND APES - -Many people used to get extremely upset at the ill-formed notion -that “man descended from the apes.” Such words were much more likely -to start fights or “monkey trials” than the correct notion that all -living animals, including man, ascended or evolved from a single-celled -organism which lived in the primeval seas hundreds of millions of years -ago. Men are mammals, of the order called Primates, and man’s living -relatives are the great apes. Men didn’t “descend” from the apes or -apes from men, and mankind must have had much closer relatives who have -since become extinct. - -Men stand erect. They also walk and run on their two feet. Apes are -happiest in trees, swinging with their arms from branch to branch. -Few branches of trees will hold the mighty gorilla, although he still -manages to sleep in trees. Apes can’t stand really erect in our sense, -and when they have to run on the ground, they use the knuckles of their -hands as well as their feet. - -A key group of fossil bones here are the south African -australopithecines. These are called the _Australopithecinae_ or -“man-apes” or sometimes even “ape-men.” We do not _know_ that they were -directly ancestral to men but they can hardly have been so to apes. -Presently I’ll describe them a bit more. The reason I mention them -here is that while they had brains no larger than those of apes, their -hipbones were enough like ours so that they must have stood erect. -There is no good reason to think they couldn’t have walked as we do. - - -BRAINS, HANDS, AND TOOLS - -Whether the australopithecines were our ancestors or not, the proper -ancestors of men must have been able to stand erect and to walk on -their two feet. Three further important things probably were involved, -next, before they could become men proper. These are: - - 1. The increasing size and development of the brain. - - 2. The increasing usefulness (specialization) of the thumb and hand. - - 3. The use of tools. - -Nobody knows which of these three is most important, or which came -first. Most probably the growth of all three things was very much -blended together. If you think about each of the things, you will see -what I mean. Unless your hand is more flexible than a paw, and your -thumb will work against (or oppose) your fingers, you can’t hold a tool -very well. But you wouldn’t get the idea of using a tool unless you had -enough brain to help you see cause and effect. And it is rather hard to -see how your hand and brain would develop unless they had something to -practice on--like using tools. In Professor Krogman’s words, “the hand -must become the obedient servant of the eye and the brain.” It is the -_co-ordination_ of these things that counts. - -Many other things must have been happening to the bodies of the -creatures who were the ancestors of men. Our ancestors had to develop -organs of speech. More than that, they had to get the idea of letting -_certain sounds_ made with these speech organs have _certain meanings_. - -All this must have gone very slowly. Probably everything was developing -little by little, all together. Men became men very slowly. - - -WHEN SHALL WE CALL MEN MEN? - -What do I mean when I say “men”? People who looked pretty much as we -do, and who used different tools to do different things, are men to me. -We’ll probably never know whether the earliest ones talked or not. They -probably had vocal cords, so they could make sounds, but did they know -how to make sounds work as symbols to carry meanings? But if the fossil -bones look like our skeletons, and if we find tools which we’ll agree -couldn’t have been made by nature or by animals, then I’d say we had -traces of _men_. - -The australopithecine finds of the Transvaal and Bechuanaland, in -south Africa, are bound to come into the discussion here. I’ve already -told you that the australopithecines could have stood upright and -walked on their two hind legs. They come from the very base of the -Pleistocene or Ice Age, and a few coarse stone tools have been found -with the australopithecine fossils. But there are three varieties -of the australopithecines and they last on until a time equal to -that of the second alpine glaciation. They are the best suggestion -we have yet as to what the ancestors of men _may_ have looked like. -They were certainly closer to men than to apes. Although their brain -size was no larger than the brains of modern apes their body size and -stature were quite small; hence, relative to their small size, their -brains were large. We have not been able to prove without doubt that -the australopithecines were _tool-making_ creatures, even though the -recent news has it that tools have been found with australopithecine -bones. The doubt as to whether the australopithecines used the tools -themselves goes like this--just suppose some man-like creature (whose -bones we have not yet found) made the tools and used them to kill -and butcher australopithecines. Hence a few experts tend to let -australopithecines still hang in limbo as “man-apes.” - - -THE EARLIEST MEN WE KNOW - -I’ll postpone talking about the tools of early men until the next -chapter. The men whose bones were the earliest of the Java lot have -been given the name _Meganthropus_. The bones are very fragmentary. We -would not understand them very well unless we had the somewhat later -Javanese lot--the more commonly known _Pithecanthropus_ or “Java -man”--against which to refer them for study. One of the less well-known -and earliest fragments, a piece of lower jaw and some teeth, rather -strongly resembles the lower jaws and teeth of the australopithecine -type. Was _Meganthropus_ a sort of half-way point between the -australopithecines and _Pithecanthropus_? It is still too early to say. -We shall need more finds before we can be definite one way or the other. - -Java man, _Pithecanthropus_, comes from geological beds equal in age -to the latter part of the second alpine glaciation; the _Meganthropus_ -finds refer to beds of the beginning of this glaciation. The first -finds of Java man were made in 1891-92 by Dr. Eugene Dubois, a Dutch -doctor in the colonial service. Finds have continued to be made. There -are now bones enough to account for four skulls. There are also four -jaws and some odd teeth and thigh bones. Java man, generally speaking, -was about five feet six inches tall, and didn’t hold his head very -erect. His skull was very thick and heavy and had room for little more -than two-thirds as large a brain as we have. He had big teeth and a big -jaw and enormous eyebrow ridges. - -No tools were found in the geological deposits where bones of Java man -appeared. There are some tools in the same general area, but they come -a bit later in time. One reason we accept the Java man as man--aside -from his general anatomical appearance--is that these tools probably -belonged to his near descendants. - -Remember that there are several varieties of men in the whole early -Java lot, at least two of which are earlier than the _Pithecanthropus_, -“Java man.” Some of the earlier ones seem to have gone in for -bigness, in tooth-size at least. _Meganthropus_ is one of these -earlier varieties. As we said, he _may_ turn out to be a link to -the australopithecines, who _may_ or _may not_ be ancestral to men. -_Meganthropus_ is best understandable in terms of _Pithecanthropus_, -who appeared later in the same general area. _Pithecanthropus_ is -pretty well understandable from the bones he left us, and also because -of his strong resemblance to the fully tool-using cave-dwelling “Peking -man,” _Sinanthropus_, about whom we shall talk next. But you can see -that the physical anthropologists and prehistoric archeologists still -have a lot of work to do on the problem of earliest men. - - -PEKING MEN AND SOME EARLY WESTERNERS - -The earliest known Chinese are called _Sinanthropus_, or “Peking man,” -because the finds were made near that city. In World War II, the United -States Marine guard at our Embassy in Peking tried to help get the -bones out of the city before the Japanese attack. Nobody knows where -these bones are now. The Red Chinese accuse us of having stolen them. -They were last seen on a dock-side at a Chinese port. But should you -catch a Marine with a sack of old bones, perhaps we could achieve peace -in Asia by returning them! Fortunately, there is a complete set of -casts of the bones. - -Peking man lived in a cave in a limestone hill, made tools, cracked -animal bones to get the marrow out, and used fire. Incidentally, the -bones of Peking man were found because Chinese dig for what they call -“dragon bones” and “dragon teeth.” Uneducated Chinese buy these things -in their drug stores and grind them into powder for medicine. The -“dragon teeth” and “bones” are really fossils of ancient animals, and -sometimes of men. The people who supply the drug stores have learned -where to dig for strange bones and teeth. Paleontologists who get to -China go to the drug stores to buy fossils. In a roundabout way, this -is how the fallen-in cave of Peking man at Choukoutien was discovered. - -Peking man was not quite as tall as Java man but he probably stood -straighter. His skull looked very much like that of the Java skull -except that it had room for a slightly larger brain. His face was less -brutish than was Java man’s face, but this isn’t saying much. - -Peking man dates from early in the interglacial period following the -second alpine glaciation. He probably lived close to 350,000 years -ago. There are several finds to account for in Europe by about this -time, and one from northwest Africa. The very large jawbone found -near Heidelberg in Germany is doubtless even earlier than Peking man. -The beds where it was found are of second alpine glacial times, and -recently some tools have been said to have come from the same beds. -There is not much I need tell you about the Heidelberg jaw save that it -seems certainly to have belonged to an early man, and that it is very -big. - -Another find in Germany was made at Steinheim. It consists of the -fragmentary skull of a man. It is very important because of its -relative completeness, but it has not yet been fully studied. The bone -is thick, but the back of the head is neither very low nor primitive, -and the face is also not primitive. The forehead does, however, have -big ridges over the eyes. The more fragmentary skull from Swanscombe in -England (p. 11) has been much more carefully studied. Only the top and -back of that skull have been found. Since the skull rounds up nicely, -it has been assumed that the face and forehead must have been quite -“modern.” Careful comparison with Steinheim shows that this was not -necessarily so. This is important because it bears on the question of -how early truly “modern” man appeared. - -Recently two fragmentary jaws were found at Ternafine in Algeria, -northwest Africa. They look like the jaws of Peking man. Tools were -found with them. Since no jaws have yet been found at Steinheim or -Swanscombe, but the time is the same, one wonders if these people had -jaws like those of Ternafine. - - -WHAT HAPPENED TO JAVA AND PEKING MEN - -Professor Weidenreich thought that there were at least a dozen ways in -which the Peking man resembled the modern Mongoloids. This would seem -to indicate that Peking man was really just a very early Chinese. - -Several later fossil men have been found in the Java-Australian area. -The best known of these is the so-called Solo man. There are some finds -from Australia itself which we now know to be quite late. But it looks -as if we may assume a line of evolution from Java man down to the -modern Australian natives. During parts of the Ice Age there was a land -bridge all the way from Java to Australia. - - -TWO ENGLISHMEN WHO WEREN’T OLD - -The older textbooks contain descriptions of two English finds which -were thought to be very old. These were called Piltdown (_Eoanthropus -dawsoni_) and Galley Hill. The skulls were very modern in appearance. -In 1948-49, British scientists began making chemical tests which proved -that neither of these finds is very old. It is now known that both -“Piltdown man” and the tools which were said to have been found with -him were part of an elaborate fake! - - -TYPICAL “CAVE MEN” - -The next men we have to talk about are all members of a related group. -These are the Neanderthal group. “Neanderthal man” himself was found in -the Neander Valley, near Düsseldorf, Germany, in 1856. He was the first -human fossil to be recognized as such. - -[Illustration: PRINCIPAL KNOWN TYPES OF FOSSIL MEN - - CRO-MAGNON - NEANDERTHAL - MODERN SKULL - COMBE-CAPELLE - SINANTHROPUS - PITHECANTHROPUS] - -Some of us think that the neanderthaloids proper are only those people -of western Europe who didn’t get out before the beginning of the last -great glaciation, and who found themselves hemmed in by the glaciers -in the Alps and northern Europe. Being hemmed in, they intermarried -a bit too much and developed into a special type. Professor F. Clark -Howell sees it this way. In Europe, the earliest trace of men we -now know is the Heidelberg jaw. Evolution continued in Europe, from -Heidelberg through the Swanscombe and Steinheim types to a group of -pre-neanderthaloids. There are traces of these pre-neanderthaloids -pretty much throughout Europe during the third interglacial period--say -100,000 years ago. The pre-neanderthaloids are represented by such -finds as the ones at Ehringsdorf in Germany and Saccopastore in Italy. -I won’t describe them for you, since they are simply less extreme than -the neanderthaloids proper--about half way between Steinheim and the -classic Neanderthal people. - -Professor Howell believes that the pre-neanderthaloids who happened to -get caught in the pocket of the southwest corner of Europe at the onset -of the last great glaciation became the classic Neanderthalers. Out in -the Near East, Howell thinks, it is possible to see traces of people -evolving from the pre-neanderthaloid type toward that of fully modern -man. Certainly, we don’t see such extreme cases of “neanderthaloidism” -outside of western Europe. - -There are at least a dozen good examples in the main or classic -Neanderthal group in Europe. They date to just before and in the -earlier part of the last great glaciation (85,000 to 40,000 years ago). -Many of the finds have been made in caves. The “cave men” the movies -and the cartoonists show you are probably meant to be Neanderthalers. -I’m not at all sure they dragged their women by the hair; the women -were probably pretty tough, too! - -Neanderthal men had large bony heads, but plenty of room for brains. -Some had brain cases even larger than the average for modern man. Their -faces were heavy, and they had eyebrow ridges of bone, but the ridges -were not as big as those of Java man. Their foreheads were very low, -and they didn’t have much chin. They were about five feet three inches -tall, but were heavy and barrel-chested. But the Neanderthalers didn’t -slouch as much as they’ve been blamed for, either. - -One important thing about the Neanderthal group is that there is a fair -number of them to study. Just as important is the fact that we know -something about how they lived, and about some of the tools they made. - - -OTHER MEN CONTEMPORARY WITH THE NEANDERTHALOIDS - -We have seen that the neanderthaloids seem to be a specialization -in a corner of Europe. What was going on elsewhere? We think that -the pre-neanderthaloid type was a generally widespread form of men. -From this type evolved other more or less extreme although generally -related men. The Solo finds in Java form one such case. Another was the -Rhodesian man of Africa, and the more recent Hopefield finds show more -of the general Rhodesian type. It is more confusing than it needs to be -if these cases outside western Europe are called neanderthaloids. They -lived during the same approximate time range but they were all somewhat -different-looking people. - - -EARLY MODERN MEN - -How early is modern man (_Homo sapiens_), the “wise man”? Some people -have thought that he was very early, a few still think so. Piltdown -and Galley Hill, which were quite modern in anatomical appearance and -_supposedly_ very early in date, were the best “evidence” for very -early modern men. Now that Piltdown has been liquidated and Galley Hill -is known to be very late, what is left of the idea? - -The backs of the skulls of the Swanscombe and Steinheim finds look -rather modern. Unless you pay attention to the face and forehead of the -Steinheim find--which not many people have--and perhaps also consider -the Ternafine jaws, you might come to the conclusion that the crown of -the Swanscombe head was that of a modern-like man. - -Two more skulls, again without faces, are available from a French -cave site, Fontéchevade. They come from the time of the last great -interglacial, as did the pre-neanderthaloids. The crowns of the -Fontéchevade skulls also look quite modern. There is a bit of the -forehead preserved on one of these skulls and the brow-ridge is not -heavy. Nevertheless, there is a suggestion that the bones belonged to -an immature individual. In this case, his (or even more so, if _her_) -brow-ridges would have been weak anyway. The case for the Fontéchevade -fossils, as modern type men, is little stronger than that for -Swanscombe, although Professor Vallois believes it a good case. - -It seems to add up to the fact that there were people living in -Europe--before the classic neanderthaloids--who looked more modern, -in some features, than the classic western neanderthaloids did. Our -best suggestion of what men looked like--just before they became fully -modern--comes from a cave on Mount Carmel in Palestine. - - -THE FIRST MODERNS - -Professor T. D. McCown and the late Sir Arthur Keith, who studied the -Mount Carmel bones, figured out that one of the two groups involved -was as much as 70 per cent modern. There were, in fact, two groups or -varieties of men in the Mount Carmel caves and in at least two other -Palestinian caves of about the same time. The time would be about that -of the onset of colder weather, when the last glaciation was beginning -in the north--say 75,000 years ago. - -The 70 per cent modern group came from only one cave, Mugharet es-Skhul -(“cave of the kids”). The other group, from several caves, had bones of -men of the type we’ve been calling pre-neanderthaloid which we noted -were widespread in Europe and beyond. The tools which came with each -of these finds were generally similar, and McCown and Keith, and other -scholars since their study, have tended to assume that both the Skhul -group and the pre-neanderthaloid group came from exactly the same time. -The conclusion was quite natural: here was a population of men in the -act of evolving in two different directions. But the time may not be -exactly the same. It is very difficult to be precise, within say 10,000 -years, for a time some 75,000 years ago. If the Skhul men are in fact -later than the pre-neanderthaloid group of Palestine, as some of us -think, then they show how relatively modern some men were--men who -lived at the same time as the classic Neanderthalers of the European -pocket. - -Soon after the first extremely cold phase of the last glaciation, we -begin to get a number of bones of completely modern men in Europe. -We also get great numbers of the tools they made, and their living -places in caves. Completely modern skeletons begin turning up in caves -dating back to toward 40,000 years ago. The time is about that of the -beginning of the second phase of the last glaciation. These skeletons -belonged to people no different from many people we see today. Like -people today, not everybody looked alike. (The positions of the more -important fossil men of later Europe are shown in the chart on page -72.) - - -DIFFERENCES IN THE EARLY MODERNS - -The main early European moderns have been divided into two groups, the -Cro-Magnon group and the Combe Capelle-Brünn group. Cro-Magnon people -were tall and big-boned, with large, long, and rugged heads. They -must have been built like many present-day Scandinavians. The Combe -Capelle-Brünn people were shorter; they had narrow heads and faces, and -big eyebrow-ridges. Of course we don’t find the skin or hair of these -people. But there is little doubt they were Caucasoids (“Whites”). - -Another important find came in the Italian Riviera, near Monte Carlo. -Here, in a cave near Grimaldi, there was a grave containing a woman -and a young boy, buried together. The two skeletons were first called -“Negroid” because some features of their bones were thought to resemble -certain features of modern African Negro bones. But more recently, -Professor E. A. Hooton and other experts questioned the use of the word -“Negroid” in describing the Grimaldi skeletons. It is true that nothing -is known of the skin color, hair form, or any other fleshy feature of -the Grimaldi people, so that the word “Negroid” in its usual meaning is -not proper here. It is also not clear whether the features of the bones -claimed to be “Negroid” are really so at all. - -From a place called Wadjak, in Java, we have “proto-Australoid” skulls -which closely resemble those of modern Australian natives. Some of -the skulls found in South Africa, especially the Boskop skull, look -like those of modern Bushmen, but are much bigger. The ancestors of -the Bushmen seem to have once been very widespread south of the Sahara -Desert. True African Negroes were forest people who apparently expanded -out of the west central African area only in the last several thousand -years. Although dark in skin color, neither the Australians nor the -Bushmen are Negroes; neither the Wadjak nor the Boskop skulls are -“Negroid.” - -As we’ve already mentioned, Professor Weidenreich believed that Peking -man was already on the way to becoming a Mongoloid. Anyway, the -Mongoloids would seem to have been present by the time of the “Upper -Cave” at Choukoutien, the _Sinanthropus_ find-spot. - - -WHAT THE DIFFERENCES MEAN - -What does all this difference mean? It means that, at one moment in -time, within each different area, men tended to look somewhat alike. -From area to area, men tended to look somewhat different, just as -they do today. This is all quite natural. People _tended_ to mate -near home; in the anthropological jargon, they made up geographically -localized breeding populations. The simple continental division of -“stocks”--black = Africa, yellow = Asia, white = Europe--is too simple -a picture to fit the facts. People became accustomed to life in some -particular area within a continent (we might call it a “natural area”). -As they went on living there, they evolved towards some particular -physical variety. It would, of course, have been difficult to draw -a clear boundary between two adjacent areas. There must always have -been some mating across the boundaries in every case. One thing human -beings don’t do, and never have done, is to mate for “purity.” It is -self-righteous nonsense when we try to kid ourselves into thinking that -they do. - -I am not going to struggle with the whole business of modern stocks and -races. This is a book about prehistoric men, not recent historic or -modern men. My physical anthropologist friends have been very patient -in helping me to write and rewrite this chapter--I am not going to -break their patience completely. Races are their business, not mine, -and they must do the writing about races. I shall, however, give two -modern definitions of race, and then make one comment. - - Dr. William G. Boyd, professor of Immunochemistry, School of - Medicine, Boston University: “We may define a human race as a - population which differs significantly from other human populations - in regard to the frequency of one or more of the genes it - possesses.” - - Professor Sherwood L. Washburn, professor of Physical Anthropology, - Department of Anthropology, the University of California: “A ‘race’ - is a group of genetically similar populations, and races intergrade - because there are always intermediate populations.” - -My comment is that the ideas involved here are all biological: they -concern groups, _not_ individuals. Boyd and Washburn may differ a bit -on what they want to consider a “population,” but a population is a -group nevertheless, and genetics is biology to the hilt. Now a lot of -people still think of race in terms of how people dress or fix their -food or of other habits or customs they have. The next step is to talk -about racial “purity.” None of this has anything whatever to do with -race proper, which is a matter of the biology of groups. - -Incidentally, I’m told that if man very carefully _controls_ -the breeding of certain animals over generations--dogs, cattle, -chickens--he might achieve a “pure” race of animals. But he doesn’t do -it. Some unfortunate genetic trait soon turns up, so this has just as -carefully to be bred out again, and so on. - - -SUMMARY OF PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF FOSSIL MEN - -The earliest bones of men we now have--upon which all the experts -would probably agree--are those of _Meganthropus_, from Java, of about -450,000 years ago. The earlier australopithecines of Africa were -possibly not tool-users and may not have been ancestral to men at all. -But there is an alternate and evidently increasingly stronger chance -that some of them may have been. The Kanam jaw from Kenya, another -early possibility, is not only very incomplete but its find-spot is -very questionable. - -Java man proper, _Pithecanthropus_, comes next, at about 400,000 years -ago, and the big Heidelberg jaw in Germany must be of about the same -date. Next comes Swanscombe in England, Steinheim in Germany, the -Ternafine jaws in Algeria, and Peking man, _Sinanthropus_. They all -date to the second great interglacial period, about 350,000 years ago. - -Piltdown and Galley Hill are out, and with them, much of the starch -in the old idea that there were two distinct lines of development -in human evolution: (1) a line of “paleoanthropic” development from -Heidelberg to the Neanderthalers where it became extinct, and (2) a -very early “modern” line, through Piltdown, Galley Hill, Swanscombe, to -us. Swanscombe, Steinheim, and Ternafine are just as easily cases of -very early pre-neanderthaloids. - -The pre-neanderthaloids were very widespread during the third -interglacial: Ehringsdorf, Saccopastore, some of the Mount Carmel -people, and probably Fontéchevade are cases in point. A variety of -their descendants can be seen, from Java (Solo), Africa (Rhodesian -man), and about the Mediterranean and in western Europe. As the acute -cold of the last glaciation set in, the western Europeans found -themselves surrounded by water, ice, or bitter cold tundra. To vastly -over-simplify it, they “bred in” and became classic neanderthaloids. -But on Mount Carmel, the Skhul cave-find with its 70 per cent modern -features shows what could happen elsewhere at the same time. - -Lastly, from about 40,000 or 35,000 years ago--the time of the onset -of the second phase of the last glaciation--we begin to find the fully -modern skeletons of men. The modern skeletons differ from place to -place, just as different groups of men living in different places still -look different. - -What became of the Neanderthalers? Nobody can tell me for sure. I’ve a -hunch they were simply “bred out” again when the cold weather was over. -Many Americans, as the years go by, are no longer ashamed to claim they -have “Indian blood in their veins.” Give us a few more generations -and there will not be very many other Americans left to whom we can -brag about it. It certainly isn’t inconceivable to me to imagine a -little Cro-Magnon boy bragging to his friends about his tough, strong, -Neanderthaler great-great-great-great-grandfather! - - - - -Cultural BEGINNINGS - -[Illustration] - - -Men, unlike the lower animals, are made up of much more than flesh and -blood and bones; for men have “culture.” - - -WHAT IS CULTURE? - -“Culture” is a word with many meanings. The doctors speak of making a -“culture” of a certain kind of bacteria, and ants are said to have a -“culture.” Then there is the Emily Post kind of “culture”--you say a -person is “cultured,” or that he isn’t, depending on such things as -whether or not he eats peas with his knife. - -The anthropologists use the word too, and argue heatedly over its finer -meanings; but they all agree that every human being is part of or has -some kind of culture. Each particular human group has a particular -culture; that is one of the ways in which we can tell one group of -men from another. In this sense, a CULTURE means the way the members -of a group of people think and believe and live, the tools they make, -and the way they do things. Professor Robert Redfield says a culture -is an organized or formalized body of conventional understandings. -“Conventional understandings” means the whole set of rules, beliefs, -and standards which a group of people lives by. These understandings -show themselves in art, and in the other things a people may make and -do. The understandings continue to last, through tradition, from one -generation to another. They are what really characterize different -human groups. - - -SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTURE - -A culture lasts, although individual men in the group die off. On -the other hand, a culture changes as the different conventions and -understandings change. You could almost say that a culture lives in the -minds of the men who have it. But people are not born with it; they -get it as they grow up. Suppose a day-old Hungarian baby is adopted by -a family in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and the child is not told that he is -Hungarian. He will grow up with no more idea of Hungarian culture than -anyone else in Oshkosh. - -So when I speak of ancient Egyptian culture, I mean the whole body -of understandings and beliefs and knowledge possessed by the ancient -Egyptians. I mean their beliefs as to why grain grew, as well as their -ability to make tools with which to reap the grain. I mean their -beliefs about life after death. What I am thinking about as culture is -a thing which lasted in time. If any one Egyptian, even the Pharaoh, -died, it didn’t affect the Egyptian culture of that particular moment. - - -PREHISTORIC CULTURES - -For that long period of man’s history that is all prehistory, we have -no written descriptions of cultures. We find only the tools men made, -the places where they lived, the graves in which they buried their -dead. Fortunately for us, these tools and living places and graves all -tell us something about the ways these men lived and the things they -believed. But the story we learn of the very early cultures must be -only a very small part of the whole, for we find so few things. The -rest of the story is gone forever. We have to do what we can with what -we find. - -For all of the time up to about 75,000 years ago, which was the time -of the classic European Neanderthal group of men, we have found few -cave-dwelling places of very early prehistoric men. First, there is the -fallen-in cave where Peking man was found, near Peking. Then there are -two or three other _early_, but not _very early_, possibilities. The -finds at the base of the French cave of Fontéchevade, those in one of -the Makapan caves in South Africa, and several open sites such as Dr. -L. S. B. Leakey’s Olorgesailie in Kenya doubtless all lie earlier than -the time of the main European Neanderthal group, but none are so early -as the Peking finds. - -You can see that we know very little about the home life of earlier -prehistoric men. We find different kinds of early stone tools, but we -can’t even be really sure which tools may have been used together. - - -WHY LITTLE HAS LASTED FROM EARLY TIMES - -Except for the rare find-spots mentioned above, all our very early -finds come from geological deposits, or from the wind-blown surfaces -of deserts. Here is what the business of geological deposits really -means. Let us say that a group of people was living in England about -300,000 years ago. They made the tools they needed, lived in some sort -of camp, almost certainly built fires, and perhaps buried their dead. -While the climate was still warm, many generations may have lived in -the same place, hunting, and gathering nuts and berries; but after some -few thousand years, the weather began very gradually to grow colder. -These early Englishmen would not have known that a glacier was forming -over northern Europe. They would only have noticed that the animals -they hunted seemed to be moving south, and that the berries grew larger -toward the south. So they would have moved south, too. - -The camp site they left is the place we archeologists would really have -liked to find. All of the different tools the people used would have -been there together--many broken, some whole. The graves, and traces -of fire, and the tools would have been there. But the glacier got -there first! The front of this enormous sheet of ice moved down over -the country, crushing and breaking and plowing up everything, like a -gigantic bulldozer. You can see what happened to our camp site. - -Everything the glacier couldn’t break, it pushed along in front of it -or plowed beneath it. Rocks were ground to gravel, and soil was caught -into the ice, which afterwards melted and ran off as muddy water. Hard -tools of flint sometimes remained whole. Human bones weren’t so hard; -it’s a wonder _any_ of them lasted. Gushing streams of melt water -flushed out the debris from underneath the glacier, and water flowed -off the surface and through great crevasses. The hard materials these -waters carried were even more rolled and ground up. Finally, such -materials were dropped by the rushing waters as gravels, miles from -the front of the glacier. At last the glacier reached its greatest -extent; then it melted backward toward the north. Debris held in the -ice was dropped where the ice melted, or was flushed off by more melt -water. When the glacier, leaving the land, had withdrawn to the sea, -great hunks of ice were broken off as icebergs. These icebergs probably -dropped the materials held in their ice wherever they floated and -melted. There must be many tools and fragmentary bones of prehistoric -men on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea. - -Remember, too, that these glaciers came and went at least three or four -times during the Ice Age. Then you will realize why the earlier things -we find are all mixed up. Stone tools from one camp site got mixed up -with stone tools from many other camp sites--tools which may have been -made tens of thousands or more years apart. The glaciers mixed them -all up, and so we cannot say which particular sets of tools belonged -together in the first place. - - -“EOLITHS” - -But what sort of tools do we find earliest? For almost a century, -people have been picking up odd bits of flint and other stone in the -oldest Ice Age gravels in England and France. It is now thought these -odd bits of stone weren’t actually worked by prehistoric men. The -stones were given a name, _eoliths_, or “dawn stones.” You can see them -in many museums; but you can be pretty sure that very few of them were -actually fashioned by men. - -It is impossible to pick out “eoliths” that seem to be made in any -one _tradition_. By “tradition” I mean a set of habits for making one -kind of tool for some particular job. No two “eoliths” look very much -alike: tools made as part of some one tradition all look much alike. -Now it’s easy to suppose that the very earliest prehistoric men picked -up and used almost any sort of stone. This wouldn’t be surprising; you -and I do it when we go camping. In other words, some of these “eoliths” -may actually have been used by prehistoric men. They must have used -anything that might be handy when they needed it. We could have figured -that out without the “eoliths.” - - -THE ROAD TO STANDARDIZATION - -Reasoning from what we know or can easily imagine, there should have -been three major steps in the prehistory of tool-making. The first step -would have been simple _utilization_ of what was at hand. This is the -step into which the “eoliths” would fall. The second step would have -been _fashioning_--the haphazard preparation of a tool when there was a -need for it. Probably many of the earlier pebble tools, which I shall -describe next, fall into this group. The third step would have been -_standardization_. Here, men began to make tools according to certain -set traditions. Counting the better-made pebble tools, there are four -such traditions or sets of habits for the production of stone tools in -earliest prehistoric times. Toward the end of the Pleistocene, a fifth -tradition appears. - - -PEBBLE TOOLS - -At the beginning of the last chapter, you’ll remember that I said there -were tools from very early geological beds. The earliest bones of men -have not yet been found in such early beds although the Sterkfontein -australopithecine cave approaches this early date. The earliest tools -come from Africa. They date back to the time of the first great -alpine glaciation and are at least 500,000 years old. The earliest -ones are made of split pebbles, about the size of your fist or a bit -bigger. They go under the name of pebble tools. There are many natural -exposures of early Pleistocene geological beds in Africa, and the -prehistoric archeologists of south and central Africa have concentrated -on searching for early tools. Other finds of early pebble tools have -recently been made in Algeria and Morocco. - -[Illustration: SOUTH AFRICAN PEBBLE TOOL] - -There are probably early pebble tools to be found in areas of the -Old World besides Africa; in fact, some prehistorians already claim -to have identified a few. Since the forms and the distinct ways of -making the earlier pebble tools had not yet sufficiently jelled into -a set tradition, they are difficult for us to recognize. It is not -so difficult, however, if there are great numbers of “possibles” -available. A little later in time the tradition becomes more clearly -set, and pebble tools are easier to recognize. So far, really large -collections of pebble tools have only been found and examined in Africa. - - -CORE-BIFACE TOOLS - -The next tradition we’ll look at is the _core_ or biface one. The tools -are large pear-shaped pieces of stone trimmed flat on the two opposite -sides or “faces.” Hence “biface” has been used to describe these tools. -The front view is like that of a pear with a rather pointed top, and -the back view looks almost exactly the same. Look at them side on, and -you can see that the front and back faces are the same and have been -trimmed to a thin tip. The real purpose in trimming down the two faces -was to get a good cutting edge all around. You can see all this in the -illustration. - -[Illustration: ABBEVILLIAN BIFACE] - -We have very little idea of the way in which these core-bifaces were -used. They have been called “hand axes,” but this probably gives the -wrong idea, for an ax, to us, is not a pointed tool. All of these early -tools must have been used for a number of jobs--chopping, scraping, -cutting, hitting, picking, and prying. Since the core-bifaces tend to -be pointed, it seems likely that they were used for hitting, picking, -and prying. But they have rough cutting edges, so they could have been -used for chopping, scraping, and cutting. - - -FLAKE TOOLS - -The third tradition is the _flake_ tradition. The idea was to get a -tool with a good cutting edge by simply knocking a nice large flake off -a big block of stone. You had to break off the flake in such a way that -it was broad and thin, and also had a good sharp cutting edge. Once you -really got on to the trick of doing it, this was probably a simpler way -to make a good cutting tool than preparing a biface. You have to know -how, though; I’ve tried it and have mashed my fingers more than once. - -The flake tools look as if they were meant mainly for chopping, -scraping, and cutting jobs. When one made a flake tool, the idea seems -to have been to produce a broad, sharp, cutting edge. - -[Illustration: CLACTONIAN FLAKE] - -The core-biface and the flake traditions were spread, from earliest -times, over much of Europe, Africa, and western Asia. The map on page -52 shows the general area. Over much of this great region there was -flint. Both of these traditions seem well adapted to flint, although -good core-bifaces and flakes were made from other kinds of stone, -especially in Africa south of the Sahara. - - -CHOPPERS AND ADZE-LIKE TOOLS - -The fourth early tradition is found in southern and eastern Asia, from -northwestern India through Java and Burma into China. Father Maringer -recently reported an early group of tools in Japan, which most resemble -those of Java, called Patjitanian. The prehistoric men in this general -area mostly used quartz and tuff and even petrified wood for their -stone tools (see illustration, p. 46). - -This fourth early tradition is called the _chopper-chopping tool_ -tradition. It probably has its earliest roots in the pebble tool -tradition of African type. There are several kinds of tools in this -tradition, but all differ from the western core-bifaces and flakes. -There are broad, heavy scrapers or cleavers, and tools with an -adze-like cutting edge. These last-named tools are called “hand adzes,” -just as the core-bifaces of the west have often been called “hand -axes.” The section of an adze cutting edge is ∠ shaped; the section of -an ax is < shaped. - -[Illustration: ANYATHIAN ADZE-LIKE TOOL] - -There are also pointed pebble tools. Thus the tool kit of these early -south and east Asiatic peoples seems to have included tools for doing -as many different jobs as did the tools of the Western traditions. - -Dr. H. L. Movius has emphasized that the tools which were found in the -Peking cave with Peking man belong to the chopper-tool tradition. This -is the only case as yet where the tools and the man have been found -together from very earliest times--if we except Sterkfontein. - - -DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE TOOL-MAKING TRADITIONS - -The latter three great traditions in the manufacture of stone -tools--and the less clear-cut pebble tools before them--are all we have -to show of the cultures of the men of those times. Changes happened in -each of the traditions. As time went on, the tools in each tradition -were better made. There could also be slight regional differences in -the tools within one tradition. Thus, tools with small differences, but -all belonging to one tradition, can be given special group (facies) -names. - -This naming of special groups has been going on for some time. Here are -some of these names, since you may see them used in museum displays -of flint tools, or in books. Within each tradition of tool-making -(save the chopper tools), the earliest tool type is at the bottom -of the list, just as it appears in the lowest beds of a geological -stratification.[3] - - [3] Archeologists usually make their charts and lists with the - earliest materials at the bottom and the latest on top, since - this is the way they find them in the ground. - - Chopper tool (all about equally early): - Anyathian (Burma) - Choukoutienian (China) - Patjitanian (Java) - Soan (India) - - Flake: - “Typical Mousterian” - Levalloiso-Mousterian - Levalloisian - Tayacian - Clactonian (localized in England) - - Core-biface: - Some blended elements in “Mousterian” - Micoquian (= Acheulean 6 and 7) - Acheulean - Abbevillian (once called “Chellean”) - - Pebble tool: - Oldowan - Ain Hanech - pre-Stellenbosch - Kafuan - -The core-biface and the flake traditions appear in the chart (p. 65). - -The early archeologists had many of the tool groups named before they -ever realized that there were broader tool preparation traditions. This -was understandable, for in dealing with the mixture of things that come -out of glacial gravels the easiest thing to do first is to isolate -individual types of tools into groups. First you put a bushel-basketful -of tools on a table and begin matching up types. Then you give names to -the groups of each type. The groups and the types are really matters of -the archeologists’ choice; in real life, they were probably less exact -than the archeologists’ lists of them. We now know pretty well in which -of the early traditions the various early groups belong. - - -THE MEANING OF THE DIFFERENT TRADITIONS - -What do the traditions really mean? I see them as the standardization -of ways to make tools for particular jobs. We may not know exactly what -job the maker of a particular core-biface or flake tool had in mind. We -can easily see, however, that he already enjoyed a know-how, a set of -persistent habits of tool preparation, which would always give him the -same type of tool when he wanted to make it. Therefore, the traditions -show us that persistent habits already existed for the preparation of -one type of tool or another. - -This tells us that one of the characteristic aspects of human culture -was already present. There must have been, in the minds of these -early men, a notion of the ideal type of tool for a particular job. -Furthermore, since we find so many thousands upon thousands of tools -of one type or another, the notion of the ideal types of tools _and_ -the know-how for the making of each type must have been held in common -by many men. The notions of the ideal types and the know-how for their -production must have been passed on from one generation to another. - -I could even guess that the notions of the ideal type of one or the -other of these tools stood out in the minds of men of those times -somewhat like a symbol of “perfect tool for good job.” If this were -so--remember it’s only a wild guess of mine--then men were already -symbol users. Now let’s go on a further step to the fact that the words -men speak are simply sounds, each different sound being a symbol for a -different meaning. If standardized tool-making suggests symbol-making, -is it also possible that crude word-symbols were also being made? I -suppose that it is not impossible. - -There may, of course, be a real question whether tool-utilizing -creatures--our first step, on page 42--were actually men. Other -animals utilize things at hand as tools. The tool-fashioning creature -of our second step is more suggestive, although we may not yet feel -sure that many of the earlier pebble tools were man-made products. But -with the step to standardization and the appearance of the traditions, -I believe we must surely be dealing with the traces of culture-bearing -_men_. The “conventional understandings” which Professor Redfield’s -definition of culture suggests are now evidenced for us in the -persistent habits for the preparation of stone tools. Were we able to -see the other things these prehistoric men must have made--in materials -no longer preserved for the archeologist to find--I believe there would -be clear signs of further conventional understandings. The men may have -been physically primitive and pretty shaggy in appearance, but I think -we must surely call them men. - - -AN OLDER INTERPRETATION OF THE WESTERN TRADITIONS - -In the last chapter, I told you that many of the older archeologists -and human paleontologists used to think that modern man was very old. -The supposed ages of Piltdown and Galley Hill were given as evidence -of the great age of anatomically modern man, and some interpretations -of the Swanscombe and Fontéchevade fossils were taken to support -this view. The conclusion was that there were two parallel lines or -“phyla” of men already present well back in the Pleistocene. The -first of these, the more primitive or “paleoanthropic” line, was -said to include Heidelberg, the proto-neanderthaloids and classic -Neanderthal. The more anatomically modern or “neanthropic” line was -thought to consist of Piltdown and the others mentioned above. The -Neanderthaler or paleoanthropic line was thought to have become extinct -after the first phase of the last great glaciation. Of course, the -modern or neanthropic line was believed to have persisted into the -present, as the basis for the world’s population today. But with -Piltdown liquidated, Galley Hill known to be very late, and Swanscombe -and Fontéchevade otherwise interpreted, there is little left of the -so-called parallel phyla theory. - -While the theory was in vogue, however, and as long as the European -archeological evidence was looked at in one short-sighted way, the -archeological materials _seemed_ to fit the parallel phyla theory. It -was simply necessary to believe that the flake tools were made only -by the paleoanthropic Neanderthaler line, and that the more handsome -core-biface tools were the product of the neanthropic modern-man line. - -Remember that _almost_ all of the early prehistoric European tools -came only from the redeposited gravel beds. This means that the tools -were not normally found in the remains of camp sites or work shops -where they had actually been dropped by the men who made and used -them. The tools came, rather, from the secondary hodge-podge of the -glacial gravels. I tried to give you a picture of the bulldozing action -of glaciers (p. 40) and of the erosion and weathering that were -side-effects of a glacially conditioned climate on the earth’s surface. -As we said above, if one simply plucks tools out of the redeposited -gravels, his natural tendency is to “type” the tools by groups, and to -think that the groups stand for something _on their own_. - -In 1906, M. Victor Commont actually made a rare find of what seems -to have been a kind of workshop site, on a terrace above the Somme -river in France. Here, Commont realized, flake tools appeared clearly -in direct association with core-biface tools. Few prehistorians paid -attention to Commont or his site, however. It was easier to believe -that flake tools represented a distinct “culture” and that this -“culture” was that of the Neanderthaler or paleoanthropic line, and -that the core-bifaces stood for another “culture” which was that of the -supposed early modern or neanthropic line. Of course, I am obviously -skipping many details here. Some later sites with Neanderthal fossils -do seem to have only flake tools, but other such sites have both types -of tools. The flake tools which appeared _with_ the core-bifaces -in the Swanscombe gravels were never made much of, although it -was embarrassing for the parallel phyla people that Fontéchevade -ran heavily to flake tools. All in all, the parallel phyla theory -flourished because it seemed so neat and easy to understand. - - -TRADITIONS ARE TOOL-MAKING HABITS, NOT CULTURES - -In case you think I simply enjoy beating a dead horse, look in any -standard book on prehistory written twenty (or even ten) years ago, or -in most encyclopedias. You’ll find that each of the individual tool -types, of the West, at least, was supposed to represent a “culture.” -The “cultures” were believed to correspond to parallel lines of human -evolution. - -In 1937, Mr. Harper Kelley strongly re-emphasized the importance -of Commont’s workshop site and the presence of flake tools with -core-bifaces. Next followed Dr. Movius’ clear delineation of the -chopper-chopping tool tradition of the Far East. This spoiled the nice -symmetry of the flake-tool = paleoanthropic, core-biface = neanthropic -equations. Then came increasing understanding of the importance of -the pebble tools in Africa, and the location of several more workshop -sites there, especially at Olorgesailie in Kenya. Finally came the -liquidation of Piltdown and the deflation of Galley Hill’s date. So it -is at last possible to picture an individual prehistoric man making a -flake tool to do one job and a core-biface tool to do another. Commont -showed us this picture in 1906, but few believed him. - -[Illustration: DISTRIBUTION OF TOOL-PREPARATION TRADITIONS - -Time approximately 100,000 years ago] - -There are certainly a few cases in which flake tools did appear with -few or no core-bifaces. The flake-tool group called Clactonian in -England is such a case. Another good, but certainly later case is -that of the cave on Mount Carmel in Palestine, where the blended -pre-neanderthaloid, 70 per cent modern-type skulls were found. Here, in -the same level with the skulls, were 9,784 flint tools. Of these, only -three--doubtless strays--were core-bifaces; all the rest were flake -tools or flake chips. We noted above how the Fontéchevade cave ran to -flake tools. The only conclusion I would draw from this is that times -and circumstances did exist in which prehistoric men needed only flake -tools. So they only made flake tools for those particular times and -circumstances. - - -LIFE IN EARLIEST TIMES - -What do we actually know of life in these earliest times? In the -glacial gravels, or in the terrace gravels of rivers once swollen by -floods of melt water or heavy rains, or on the windswept deserts, we -find stone tools. The earliest and coarsest of these are the pebble -tools. We do not yet know what the men who made them looked like, -although the Sterkfontein australopithecines probably give us a good -hint. Then begin the more formal tool preparation traditions of the -west--the core-bifaces and the flake tools--and the chopper-chopping -tool series of the farther east. There is an occasional roughly worked -piece of bone. From the gravels which yield the Clactonian flakes of -England comes the fire-hardened point of a wooden spear. There are -also the chance finds of the fossil human bones themselves, of which -we spoke in the last chapter. Aside from the cave of Peking man, none -of the earliest tools have been found in caves. Open air or “workshop” -sites which do not seem to have been disturbed later by some geological -agency are very rare. - -The chart on page 65 shows graphically what the situation in -west-central Europe seems to have been. It is not yet certain whether -there were pebble tools there or not. The Fontéchevade cave comes -into the picture about 100,000 years ago or more. But for the earlier -hundreds of thousands of years--below the red-dotted line on the -chart--the tools we find come almost entirely from the haphazard -mixture within the geological contexts. - -The stone tools of each of the earlier traditions are the simplest -kinds of all-purpose tools. Almost any one of them could be used for -hacking, chopping, cutting, and scraping; so the men who used them must -have been living in a rough and ready sort of way. They found or hunted -their food wherever they could. In the anthropological jargon, they -were “food-gatherers,” pure and simple. - -Because of the mixture in the gravels and in the materials they -carried, we can’t be sure which animals these men hunted. Bones of -the larger animals turn up in the gravels, but they could just as -well belong to the animals who hunted the men, rather than the other -way about. We don’t know. This is why camp sites like Commont’s and -Olorgesailie in Kenya are so important when we do find them. The animal -bones at Olorgesailie belonged to various mammals of extremely large -size. Probably they were taken in pit-traps, but there are a number of -groups of three round stones on the site which suggest that the people -used bolas. The South American Indians used three-ball bolas, with the -stones in separate leather bags connected by thongs. These were whirled -and then thrown through the air so as to entangle the feet of a fleeing -animal. - -Professor F. Clark Howell recently returned from excavating another -important open air site at Isimila in Tanganyika. The site yielded -the bones of many fossil animals and also thousands of core-bifaces, -flakes, and choppers. But Howell’s reconstruction of the food-getting -habits of the Isimila people certainly suggests that the word “hunting” -is too dignified for what they did; “scavenging” would be much nearer -the mark. - -During a great part of this time the climate was warm and pleasant. The -second interglacial period (the time between the second and third great -alpine glaciations) lasted a long time, and during much of this time -the climate may have been even better than ours is now. We don’t know -that earlier prehistoric men in Europe or Africa lived in caves. They -may not have needed to; much of the weather may have been so nice that -they lived in the open. Perhaps they didn’t wear clothes, either. - - -WHAT THE PEKING CAVE-FINDS TELL US - -The one early cave-dwelling we have found is that of Peking man, in -China. Peking man had fire. He probably cooked his meat, or used -the fire to keep dangerous animals away from his den. In the cave -were bones of dangerous animals, members of the wolf, bear, and cat -families. Some of the cat bones belonged to beasts larger than tigers. -There were also bones of other wild animals: buffalo, camel, deer, -elephants, horses, sheep, and even ostriches. Seventy per cent of the -animals Peking man killed were fallow deer. It’s much too cold and dry -in north China for all these animals to live there today. So this list -helps us know that the weather was reasonably warm, and that there was -enough rain to grow grass for the grazing animals. The list also helps -the paleontologists to date the find. - -Peking man also seems to have eaten plant food, for there are hackberry -seeds in the debris of the cave. His tools were made of sandstone and -quartz and sometimes of a rather bad flint. As we’ve already seen, they -belong in the chopper-tool tradition. It seems fairly clear that some -of the edges were chipped by right-handed people. There are also many -split pieces of heavy bone. Peking man probably split them so he could -eat the bone marrow, but he may have used some of them as tools. - -Many of these split bones were the bones of Peking men. Each one of the -skulls had already had the base broken out of it. In no case were any -of the bones resting together in their natural relation to one another. -There is nothing like a burial; all of the bones are scattered. Now -it’s true that animals could have scattered bodies that were not cared -for or buried. But splitting bones lengthwise and carefully removing -the base of a skull call for both the tools and the people to use them. -It’s pretty clear who the people were. Peking man was a cannibal. - - * * * * * - -This rounds out about all we can say of the life and times of early -prehistoric men. In those days life was rough. You evidently had to -watch out not only for dangerous animals but also for your fellow men. -You ate whatever you could catch or find growing. But you had sense -enough to build fires, and you had already formed certain habits for -making the kinds of stone tools you needed. That’s about all we know. -But I think we’ll have to admit that cultural beginnings had been made, -and that these early people were really _men_. - - - - -MORE EVIDENCE of Culture - -[Illustration] - - -While the dating is not yet sure, the material that we get from caves -in Europe must go back to about 100,000 years ago; the time of the -classic Neanderthal group followed soon afterwards. We don’t know why -there is no earlier material in the caves; apparently they were not -used before the last interglacial phase (the period just before the -last great glaciation). We know that men of the classic Neanderthal -group were living in caves from about 75,000 to 45,000 years ago. -New radioactive carbon dates even suggest that some of the traces of -culture we’ll describe in this chapter may have lasted to about 35,000 -years ago. Probably some of the pre-neanderthaloid types of men had -also lived in caves. But we have so far found their bones in caves only -in Palestine and at Fontéchevade. - - -THE CAVE LAYERS - -In parts of France, some peasants still live in caves. In prehistoric -time, many generations of people lived in them. As a result, many -caves have deep layers of debris. The first people moved in and lived -on the rock floor. They threw on the floor whatever they didn’t want, -and they tracked in mud; nobody bothered to clean house in those days. -Their debris--junk and mud and garbage and what not--became packed -into a layer. As time went on, and generations passed, the layer grew -thicker. Then there might have been a break in the occupation of the -cave for a while. Perhaps the game animals got scarce and the people -moved away; or maybe the cave became flooded. Later on, other people -moved in and began making a new layer of their own on top of the first -layer. Perhaps this process of layering went on in the same cave for a -hundred thousand years; you can see what happened. The drawing on this -page shows a section through such a cave. The earliest layer is on the -bottom, the latest one on top. They go in order from bottom to top, -earliest to latest. This is the _stratification_ we talked about (p. -12). - -[Illustration: SECTION OF SHELTER ON LOWER TERRACE, LE MOUSTIER] - -While we may find a mix-up in caves, it’s not nearly as bad as the -mixing up that was done by glaciers. The animal bones and shells, the -fireplaces, the bones of men, and the tools the men made all belong -together, if they come from one layer. That’s the reason why the cave -of Peking man is so important. It is also the reason why the caves in -Europe and the Near East are so important. We can get an idea of which -things belong together and which lot came earliest and which latest. - -In most cases, prehistoric men lived only in the mouths of caves. -They didn’t like the dark inner chambers as places to live in. They -preferred rock-shelters, at the bases of overhanging cliffs, if there -was enough overhang to give shelter. When the weather was good, they no -doubt lived in the open air as well. I’ll go on using the term “cave” -since it’s more familiar, but remember that I really mean rock-shelter, -as a place in which people actually lived. - -The most important European cave sites are in Spain, France, and -central Europe; there are also sites in England and Italy. A few caves -are known in the Near East and Africa, and no doubt more sites will be -found when the out-of-the-way parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia are -studied. - - -AN “INDUSTRY” DEFINED - -We have already seen that the earliest European cave materials are -those from the cave of Fontéchevade. Movius feels certain that the -lowest materials here date back well into the third interglacial stage, -that which lay between the Riss (next to the last) and the Würm I -(first stage of the last) alpine glaciations. This material consists -of an _industry_ of stone tools, apparently all made in the flake -tradition. This is the first time we have used the word “industry.” -It is useful to call all of the different tools found together in one -layer and made of _one kind of material_ an industry; that is, the -tools must be found together as men left them. Tools taken from the -glacial gravels (or from windswept desert surfaces or river gravels -or any geological deposit) are not “together” in this sense. We might -say the latter have only “geological,” not “archeological” context. -Archeological context means finding things just as men left them. We -can tell what tools go together in an “industrial” sense only if we -have archeological context. - -Up to now, the only things we could have called “industries” were the -worked stone industry and perhaps the worked (?) bone industry of the -Peking cave. We could add some of the very clear cases of open air -sites, like Olorgesailie. We couldn’t use the term for the stone tools -from the glacial gravels, because we do not know which tools belonged -together. But when the cave materials begin to appear in Europe, we can -begin to speak of industries. Most of the European caves of this time -contain industries of flint tools alone. - - -THE EARLIEST EUROPEAN CAVE LAYERS - -We’ve just mentioned the industry from what is said to be the oldest -inhabited cave in Europe; that is, the industry from the deepest layer -of the site at Fontéchevade. Apparently it doesn’t amount to much. The -tools are made of stone, in the flake tradition, and are very poorly -worked. This industry is called _Tayacian_. Its type tool seems to be -a smallish flake tool, but there are also larger flakes which seem to -have been fashioned for hacking. In fact, the type tool seems to be -simply a smaller edition of the Clactonian tool (pictured on p. 45). - -None of the Fontéchevade tools are really good. There are scrapers, -and more or less pointed tools, and tools that may have been used -for hacking and chopping. Many of the tools from the earlier glacial -gravels are better made than those of this first industry we see in -a European cave. There is so little of this material available that -we do not know which is really typical and which is not. You would -probably find it hard to see much difference between this industry and -a collection of tools of the type called Clactonian, taken from the -glacial gravels, especially if the Clactonian tools were small-sized. - -The stone industry of the bottommost layer of the Mount Carmel cave, -in Palestine, where somewhat similar tools were found, has also been -called Tayacian. - -I shall have to bring in many unfamiliar words for the names of the -industries. The industries are usually named after the places where -they were first found, and since these were in most cases in France, -most of the names which follow will be of French origin. However, -the names have simply become handles and are in use far beyond the -boundaries of France. It would be better if we had a non-place-name -terminology, but archeologists have not yet been able to agree on such -a terminology. - - -THE ACHEULEAN INDUSTRY - -Both in France and in Palestine, as well as in some African cave -sites, the next layers in the deep caves have an industry in both the -core-biface and the flake traditions. The core-biface tools usually -make up less than half of all the tools in the industry. However, -the name of the biface type of tool is generally given to the whole -industry. It is called the _Acheulean_, actually a late form of it, as -“Acheulean” is also used for earlier core-biface tools taken from the -glacial gravels. In western Europe, the name used is _Upper Acheulean_ -or _Micoquian_. The same terms have been borrowed to name layers E and -F in the Tabun cave, on Mount Carmel in Palestine. - -The Acheulean core-biface type of tool is worked on two faces so as -to give a cutting edge all around. The outline of its front view may -be oval, or egg-shaped, or a quite pointed pear shape. The large -chip-scars of the Acheulean core-bifaces are shallow and flat. It is -suspected that this resulted from the removal of the chips with a -wooden club; the deep chip-scars of the earlier Abbevillian core-biface -came from beating the tool against a stone anvil. These tools are -really the best and also the final products of the core-biface -tradition. We first noticed the tradition in the early glacial gravels -(p. 43); now we see its end, but also its finest examples, in the -deeper cave levels. - -The flake tools, which really make up the greater bulk of this -industry, are simple scrapers and chips with sharp cutting edges. The -habits used to prepare them must have been pretty much the same as -those used for at least one of the flake industries we shall mention -presently. - -There is very little else in these early cave layers. We do not have -a proper “industry” of bone tools. There are traces of fire, and of -animal bones, and a few shells. In Palestine, there are many more -bones of deer than of gazelle in these layers; the deer lives in a -wetter climate than does the gazelle. In the European cave layers, the -animal bones are those of beasts that live in a warm climate. They -belonged in the last interglacial period. We have not yet found the -bones of fossil men definitely in place with this industry. - -[Illustration: ACHEULEAN BIFACE] - - -FLAKE INDUSTRIES FROM THE CAVES - -Two more stone industries--the _Levalloisian_ and the -“_Mousterian_”--turn up at approximately the same time in the European -cave layers. Their tools seem to be mainly in the flake tradition, -but according to some of the authorities their preparation also shows -some combination with the habits by which the core-biface tools were -prepared. - -Now notice that I don’t tell you the Levalloisian and the “Mousterian” -layers are both above the late Acheulean layers. Look at the cave -section (p. 57) and you’ll find that some “Mousterian of Acheulean -tradition” appears above some “typical Mousterian.” This means that -there may be some kinds of Acheulean industries that are later than -some kinds of “Mousterian.” The same is true of the Levalloisian. - -There were now several different kinds of habits that men used in -making stone tools. These habits were based on either one or the other -of the two traditions--core-biface or flake--or on combinations of -the habits used in the preparation techniques of both traditions. All -were popular at about the same time. So we find that people who made -one kind of stone tool industry lived in a cave for a while. Then they -gave up the cave for some reason, and people with another industry -moved in. Then the first people came back--or at least somebody with -the same tool-making habits as the first people. Or maybe a third group -of tool-makers moved in. The people who had these different habits for -making their stone tools seem to have moved around a good deal. They no -doubt borrowed and exchanged tricks of the trade with each other. There -were no patent laws in those days. - -The extremely complicated interrelationships of the different habits -used by the tool-makers of this range of time are at last being -systematically studied. M. François Bordes has developed a statistical -method of great importance for understanding these tool preparation -habits. - - -THE LEVALLOISIAN AND MOUSTERIAN - -The easiest Levalloisian tool to spot is a big flake tool. The trick -in making it was to fashion carefully a big chunk of stone (called -the Levalloisian “tortoise core,” because it resembles the shape of -a turtle-shell) and then to whack this in such a way that a large -flake flew off. This large thin flake, with sharp cutting edges, is -the finished Levalloisian tool. There were various other tools in a -Levalloisian industry, but this is the characteristic _Levalloisian_ -tool. - -There are several “typical Mousterian” stone tools. Different from -the tools of the Levalloisian type, these were made from “disc-like -cores.” There are medium-sized flake “side scrapers.” There are also -some small pointed tools and some small “hand axes.” The last of these -tool types is often a flake worked on both of the flat sides (that -is, bifacially). There are also pieces of flint worked into the form -of crude balls. The pointed tools may have been fixed on shafts to -make short jabbing spears; the round flint balls may have been used as -bolas. Actually, we don’t _know_ what either tool was used for. The -points and side scrapers are illustrated (pp. 64 and 66). - -[Illustration: LEVALLOIS FLAKE] - - -THE MIXING OF TRADITIONS - -Nowadays the archeologists are less and less sure of the importance -of any one specific tool type and name. Twenty years ago, they used -to speak simply of Acheulean or Levalloisian or Mousterian tools. -Now, more and more, _all_ of the tools from some one layer in a -cave are called an “industry,” which is given a mixed name. Thus we -have “Levalloiso-Mousterian,” and “Acheuleo-Levalloisian,” and even -“Acheuleo-Mousterian” (or “Mousterian of Acheulean tradition”). Bordes’ -systematic work is beginning to clear up some of our confusion. - -The time of these late Acheuleo-Levalloiso-Mousterioid industries -is from perhaps as early as 100,000 years ago. It may have lasted -until well past 50,000 years ago. This was the time of the first -phase of the last great glaciation. It was also the time that the -classic group of Neanderthal men was living in Europe. A number of -the Neanderthal fossil finds come from these cave layers. Before the -different habits of tool preparation were understood it used to be -popular to say Neanderthal man was “Mousterian man.” I think this is -wrong. What used to be called “Mousterian” is now known to be a variety -of industries with tools of both core-biface and flake habits, and -so mixed that the word “Mousterian” used alone really doesn’t mean -anything. The Neanderthalers doubtless understood the tool preparation -habits by means of which Acheulean, Levalloisian and Mousterian type -tools were produced. We also have the more modern-like Mount Carmel -people, found in a cave layer of Palestine with tools almost entirely -in the flake tradition, called “Levalloiso-Mousterian,” and the -Fontéchevade-Tayacian (p. 59). - -[Illustration: MOUSTERIAN POINT] - - -OTHER SUGGESTIONS OF LIFE IN THE EARLY CAVE LAYERS - -Except for the stone tools, what do we know of the way men lived in the -time range after 100,000 to perhaps 40,000 years ago or even later? -We know that in the area from Europe to Palestine, at least some of -the people (some of the time) lived in the fronts of caves and warmed -themselves over fires. In Europe, in the cave layers of these times, -we find the bones of different animals; the bones in the lowest layers -belong to animals that lived in a warm climate; above them are the -bones of those who could stand the cold, like the reindeer and mammoth. -Thus, the meat diet must have been changing, as the glacier crept -farther south. Shells and possibly fish bones have lasted in these -cave layers, but there is not a trace of the vegetable foods and the -nuts and berries and other wild fruits that must have been eaten when -they could be found. - -[Illustration: CHART SHOWING PRESENT UNDERSTANDING OF RELATIONSHIPS AND -SUCCESSION OF TOOL-PREPARATION TRADITIONS, INDUSTRIES, AND ASSEMBLAGES -OF WEST-CENTRAL EUROPE - -Wavy lines indicate transitions in industrial habits. These transitions -are not yet understood in detail. The glacial and climatic scheme shown -is the alpine one.] - -Bone tools have also been found from this period. Some are called -scrapers, and there are also long chisel-like leg-bone fragments -believed to have been used for skinning animals. Larger hunks of bone, -which seem to have served as anvils or chopping blocks, are fairly -common. - -Bits of mineral, used as coloring matter, have also been found. We -don’t know what the color was used for. - -[Illustration: MOUSTERIAN SIDE SCRAPER] - -There is a small but certain number of cases of intentional burials. -These burials have been found on the floors of the caves; in other -words, the people dug graves in the places where they lived. The holes -made for the graves were small. For this reason (or perhaps for some -other?) the bodies were in a curled-up or contracted position. Flint or -bone tools or pieces of meat seem to have been put in with some of the -bodies. In several cases, flat stones had been laid over the graves. - - -TOOLS FROM AFRICA AND ASIA ABOUT 100,000 YEARS AGO - -Professor Movius characterizes early prehistoric Africa as a continent -showing a variety of stone industries. Some of these industries were -purely local developments and some were practically identical with -industries found in Europe at the same time. From northwest Africa -to Capetown--excepting the tropical rain forest region of the west -center--tools of developed Acheulean, Levalloisian, and Mousterian -types have been recognized. Often they are named after African place -names. - -In east and south Africa lived people whose industries show a -development of the Levalloisian technique. Such industries are -called Stillbay. Another industry, developed on the basis of the -Acheulean technique, is called Fauresmith. From the northwest comes -an industry with tanged points and flake-blades; this is called the -Aterian. The tropical rain forest region contained people whose stone -tools apparently show adjustment to this peculiar environment; the -so-called Sangoan industry includes stone picks, adzes, core-bifaces -of specialized Acheulean type, and bifacial points which were probably -spearheads. - -In western Asia, even as far as the east coast of India, the tools of -the Eurafrican core-biface and flake tool traditions continued to be -used. But in the Far East, as we noted in the last chapter, men had -developed characteristic stone chopper and chopping tools. This tool -preparation tradition--basically a pebble tool tradition--lasted to the -very end of the Ice Age. - -When more intact open air sites such as that of an earlier time at -Olorgesailie, and more stratified cave sites are found and excavated -in Asia and Africa, we shall be able to get a more complete picture. -So far, our picture of the general cultural level of the Old World at -about 100,000 years ago--and soon afterwards--is best from Europe, but -it is still far from complete there, too. - - -CULTURE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE LAST GREAT GLACIAL PERIOD - -The few things we have found must indicate only a very small part -of the total activities of the people who lived at the time. All of -the things they made of wood and bark, of skins, of anything soft, -are gone. The fact that burials were made, at least in Europe and -Palestine, is pretty clear proof that the people had some notion of a -life after death. But what this notion really was, or what gods (if -any) men believed in, we cannot know. Dr. Movius has also reminded me -of the so-called bear cults--cases in which caves have been found which -contain the skulls of bears in apparently purposeful arrangement. This -might suggest some notion of hoarding up the spirits or the strength of -bears killed in the hunt. Probably the people lived in small groups, -as hunting and food-gathering seldom provide enough food for large -groups of people. These groups probably had some kind of leader or -“chief.” Very likely the rude beginnings of rules for community life -and politics, and even law, were being made. But what these were, we -do not know. We can only guess about such things, as we can only guess -about many others; for example, how the idea of a family must have been -growing, and how there may have been witch doctors who made beginnings -in medicine or in art, in the materials they gathered for their trade. - -The stone tools help us most. They have lasted, and we can find -them. As they come to us, from this cave or that, and from this -layer or that, the tool industries show a variety of combinations -of the different basic habits or traditions of tool preparation. -This seems only natural, as the groups of people must have been very -small. The mixtures and blendings of the habits used in making stone -tools must mean that there were also mixtures and blends in many of -the other ideas and beliefs of these small groups. And what this -probably means is that there was no one _culture_ of the time. It is -certainly unlikely that there were simply three cultures, “Acheulean,” -“Levalloisian,” and “Mousterian,” as has been thought in the past. -Rather there must have been a great variety of loosely related cultures -at about the same stage of advancement. We could say, too, that here -we really begin to see, for the first time, that remarkable ability -of men to adapt themselves to a variety of conditions. We shall see -this adaptive ability even more clearly as time goes on and the record -becomes more complete. - -Over how great an area did these loosely related cultures reach in -the time 75,000 to 45,000 or even as late as 35,000 years ago? We -have described stone tools made in one or another of the flake and -core-biface habits, for an enormous area. It covers all of Europe, all -of Africa, the Near East, and parts of India. It is perfectly possible -that the flake and core-biface habits lasted on after 35,000 years ago, -in some places outside of Europe. In northern Africa, for example, we -are certain that they did (see chart, p. 72). - -On the other hand, in the Far East (China, Burma, Java) and in northern -India, the tools of the old chopper-tool tradition were still being -made. Out there, we must assume, there was a different set of loosely -related cultures. At least, there was a different set of loosely -related habits for the making of tools. But the men who made them must -have looked much like the men of the West. Their tools were different, -but just as useful. - -As to what the men of the West looked like, I’ve already hinted at all -we know so far (pp. 29 ff.). The Neanderthalers were present at -the time. Some more modern-like men must have been about, too, since -fossils of them have turned up at Mount Carmel in Palestine, and at -Teshik Tash, in Trans-caspian Russia. It is still too soon to know -whether certain combinations of tools within industries were made -only by certain physical types of men. But since tools of both the -core-biface and the flake traditions, and their blends, turn up from -South Africa to England to India, it is most unlikely that only one -type of man used only one particular habit in the preparation of tools. -What seems perfectly clear is that men in Africa and men in India were -making just as good tools as the men who lived in western Europe. - - - - -EARLY MODERNS - -[Illustration] - - -From some time during the first inter-stadial of the last great -glaciation (say some time after about 40,000 years ago), we have -more accurate dates for the European-Mediterranean area and less -accurate ones for the rest of the Old World. This is probably -because the effects of the last glaciation have been studied in the -European-Mediterranean area more than they have been elsewhere. - - -A NEW TRADITION APPEARS - -Something new was probably beginning to happen in the -European-Mediterranean area about 40,000 years ago, though all the -rest of the Old World seems to have been going on as it had been. I -can’t be sure of this because the information we are using as a basis -for dates is very inaccurate for the areas outside of Europe and the -Mediterranean. - -We can at least make a guess. In Egypt and north Africa, men were still -using the old methods of making stone tools. This was especially true -of flake tools of the Levalloisian type, save that they were growing -smaller and smaller as time went on. But at the same time, a new -tradition was becoming popular in westernmost Asia and in Europe. This -was the blade-tool tradition. - - -BLADE TOOLS - -A stone blade is really just a long parallel-sided flake, as the -drawing shows. It has sharp cutting edges, and makes a very useful -knife. The real trick is to be able to make one. It is almost -impossible to make a blade out of any stone but flint or a natural -volcanic glass called obsidian. And even if you have flint or obsidian, -you first have to work up a special cone-shaped “blade-core,” from -which to whack off blades. - -[Illustration: PLAIN BLADE] - -You whack with a hammer stone against a bone or antler punch which is -directed at the proper place on the blade-core. The blade-core has to -be well supported or gripped while this is going on. To get a good -flint blade tool takes a great deal of know-how. - -Remember that a tradition in stone tools means no more than that some -particular way of making the tools got started and lasted a long time. -Men who made some tools in one tradition or set of habits would also -make other tools for different purposes by means of another tradition -or set of habits. It was even possible for the two sets of habits to -become combined. - - -THE EARLIEST BLADE TOOLS - -The oldest blade tools we have found were deep down in the layers of -the Mount Carmel caves, in Tabun Eb and Ea. Similar tools have been -found in equally early cave levels in Syria; their popularity there -seems to fluctuate a bit. Some more or less parallel-sided flakes are -known in the Levalloisian industry in France, but they are probably -no earlier than Tabun E. The Tabun blades are part of a local late -“Acheulean” industry, which is characterized by core-biface “hand -axes,” but which has many flake tools as well. Professor F. E. -Zeuner believes that this industry may be more than 120,000 years old; -actually its date has not yet been fixed, but it is very old--older -than the fossil finds of modern-like men in the same caves. - -[Illustration: SUCCESSION OF ICE AGE FLINT TYPES, INDUSTRIES, AND -ASSEMBLAGES, AND OF FOSSIL MEN, IN NORTHWESTERN EURAFRASIA] - -For some reason, the habit of making blades in Palestine and Syria was -interrupted. Blades only reappeared there at about the same time they -were first made in Europe, some time after 45,000 years ago; that is, -after the first phase of the last glaciation was ended. - -[Illustration: BACKED BLADE] - -We are not sure just where the earliest _persisting_ habits for the -production of blade tools developed. Impressed by the very early -momentary appearance of blades at Tabun on Mount Carmel, Professor -Dorothy A. Garrod first favored the Near East as a center of origin. -She spoke of “some as yet unidentified Asiatic centre,” which she -thought might be in the highlands of Iran or just beyond. But more -recent work has been done in this area, especially by Professor Coon, -and the blade tools do not seem to have an early appearance there. When -the blade tools reappear in the Syro-Palestinian area, they do so in -industries which also include Levalloiso-Mousterian flake tools. From -the point of view of form and workmanship, the blade tools themselves -are not so fine as those which seem to be making their appearance -in western Europe about the same time. There is a characteristic -Syro-Palestinian flake point, possibly a projectile tip, called the -Emiran, which is not known from Europe. The appearance of blade tools, -together with Levalloiso-Mousterian flakes, continues even after the -Emiran point has gone out of use. - -It seems clear that the production of blade tools did not immediately -swamp the set of older habits in Europe, too; the use of flake -tools also continued there. This was not so apparent to the older -archeologists, whose attention was focused on individual tool types. It -is not, in fact, impossible--although it is certainly not proved--that -the technique developed in the preparation of the Levalloisian tortoise -core (and the striking of the Levalloisian flake from it) might have -followed through to the conical core and punch technique for the -production of blades. Professor Garrod is much impressed with the speed -of change during the later phases of the last glaciation, and its -probable consequences. She speaks of “the greater number of industries -having enough individual character to be classified as distinct ... -since evolution now starts to outstrip diffusion.” Her “evolution” here -is of course an industrial evolution rather than a biological one. -Certainly the people of Europe had begun to make blade tools during -the warm spell after the first phase of the last glaciation. By about -40,000 years ago blades were well established. The bones of the blade -tool makers we’ve found so far indicate that anatomically modern men -had now certainly appeared. Unfortunately, only a few fossil men have -so far been found from the very beginning of the blade tool range in -Europe (or elsewhere). What I certainly shall _not_ tell you is that -conquering bands of fine, strong, anatomically modern men, armed with -superior blade tools, came sweeping out of the East to exterminate the -lowly Neanderthalers. Even if we don’t know exactly what happened, I’d -lay a good bet it wasn’t that simple. - -We do know a good deal about different blade industries in Europe. -Almost all of them come from cave layers. There is a great deal of -complication in what we find. The chart (p. 72) tries to simplify -this complication; in fact, it doubtless simplifies it too much. But -it may suggest all the complication of industries which is going -on at this time. You will note that the upper portion of my much -simpler chart (p. 65) covers the same material (in the section -marked “Various Blade-Tool Industries”). That chart is certainly too -simplified. - -You will realize that all this complication comes not only from -the fact that we are finding more material. It is due also to the -increasing ability of men to adapt themselves to a great variety of -situations. Their tools indicate this adaptiveness. We know there was -a good deal of climatic change at this time. The plants and animals -that men used for food were changing, too. The great variety of tools -and industries we now find reflect these changes and the ability of men -to keep up with the times. Now, for example, is the first time we are -sure that there are tools to _make_ other tools. They also show men’s -increasing ability to adapt themselves. - - -SPECIAL TYPES OF BLADE TOOLS - -The most useful tools that appear at this time were made from blades. - - 1. The “backed” blade. This is a knife made of a flint blade, with - one edge purposely blunted, probably to save the user’s fingers - from being cut. There are several shapes of backed blades (p. - 73). - - [Illustration: TWO BURINS] - - 2. The _burin_ or “graver.” The burin was the original chisel. Its - cutting edge is _transverse_, like a chisel’s. Some burins are - made like a screw-driver, save that burins are sharp. Others have - edges more like the blade of a chisel or a push plane, with - only one bevel. Burins were probably used to make slots in wood - and bone; that is, to make handles or shafts for other tools. - They must also be the tools with which much of the engraving on - bone (see p. 83) was done. There is a bewildering variety of - different kinds of burins. - -[Illustration: TANGED POINT] - - 3. The “tanged” point. These stone points were used to tip arrows or - light spears. They were made from blades, and they had a long tang - at the bottom where they were fixed to the shaft. At the place - where the tang met the main body of the stone point, there was - a marked “shoulder,” the beginnings of a barb. Such points had - either one or two shoulders. - -[Illustration: NOTCHED BLADE] - - 4. The “notched” or “strangulated” blade. Along with the points for - arrows or light spears must go a tool to prepare the arrow or - spear shaft. Today, such a tool would be called a “draw-knife” or - a “spoke-shave,” and this is what the notched blades probably are. - Our spoke-shaves have sharp straight cutting blades and really - “shave.” Notched blades of flint probably scraped rather than cut. - - 5. The “awl,” “drill,” or “borer.” These blade tools are worked out - to a spike-like point. They must have been used for making holes - in wood, bone, shell, skin, or other things. - -[Illustration: DRILL OR AWL] - - 6. The “end-scraper on a blade” is a tool with one or both ends - worked so as to give a good scraping edge. It could have been used - to hollow out wood or bone, scrape hides, remove bark from trees, - and a number of other things (p. 78). - -There is one very special type of flint tool, which is best known from -western Europe in an industry called the Solutrean. These tools were -usually made of blades, but the best examples are so carefully worked -on both sides (bifacially) that it is impossible to see the original -blade. This tool is - - 7. The “laurel leaf” point. Some of these tools were long and - dagger-like, and must have been used as knives or daggers. Others - were small, called “willow leaf,” and must have been mounted on - spear or arrow shafts. Another typical Solutrean tool is the - “shouldered” point. Both the “laurel leaf” and “shouldered” point - types are illustrated (see above and p. 79). - -[Illustration: END-SCRAPER ON A BLADE] - -[Illustration: LAUREL LEAF POINT] - -The industries characterized by tools in the blade tradition also -yield some flake and core tools. We will end this list with two types -of tools that appear at this time. The first is made of a flake; the -second is a core tool. - -[Illustration: SHOULDERED POINT] - - 8. The “keel-shaped round scraper” is usually small and quite round, - and has had chips removed up to a peak in the center. It is called - “keel-shaped” because it is supposed to look (when upside down) - like a section through a boat. Actually, it looks more like a tent - or an umbrella. Its outer edges are sharp all the way around, and - it was probably a general purpose scraping tool (see illustration, - p. 81). - - 9. The “keel-shaped nosed scraper” is a much larger and heavier tool - than the round scraper. It was made on a core with a flat bottom, - and has one nicely worked end or “nose.” Such tools are usually - large enough to be easily grasped, and probably were used like - push planes (see illustration, p. 81). - -[Illustration: KEEL-SHAPED ROUND SCRAPER] - -[Illustration: KEEL-SHAPED NOSED SCRAPER] - -The stone tools (usually made of flint) we have just listed are among -the most easily recognized blade tools, although they show differences -in detail at different times. There are also many other kinds. Not -all of these tools appear in any one industry at one time. Thus the -different industries shown in the chart (p. 72) each have only some -of the blade tools we’ve just listed, and also a few flake tools. Some -industries even have a few core tools. The particular types of blade -tools appearing in one cave layer or another, and the frequency of -appearance of the different types, tell which industry we have in each -layer. - - -OTHER KINDS OF TOOLS - -By this time in Europe--say from about 40,000 to about 10,000 years -ago--we begin to find other kinds of material too. Bone tools begin -to appear. There are knives, pins, needles with eyes, and little -double-pointed straight bars of bone that were probably fish-hooks. The -fish-line would have been fastened in the center of the bar; when the -fish swallowed the bait, the bar would have caught cross-wise in the -fish’s mouth. - -One quite special kind of bone tool is a long flat point for a light -spear. It has a deep notch cut up into the breadth of its base, and is -called a “split-based bone point” (p. 82). We know examples of bone -beads from these times, and of bone handles for flint tools. Pierced -teeth of some animals were worn as beads or pendants, but I am not sure -that elks’ teeth were worn this early. There are even spool-shaped -“buttons” or toggles. - -[Illustration: SPLIT-BASED BONE POINT] - -[Illustration: SPEAR-THROWER] - -[Illustration: BONE HARPOON] - -Antler came into use for tools, especially in central and western -Europe. We do not know the use of one particular antler tool that -has a large hole bored in one end. One suggestion is that it was -a thong-stropper used to strop or work up hide thongs (see -illustration, below); another suggestion is that it was an arrow-shaft -straightener. - -Another interesting tool, usually of antler, is the spear-thrower, -which is little more than a stick with a notch or hook on one end. -The hook fits into the butt end of the spear, and the length of the -spear-thrower allows you to put much more power into the throw (p. -82). It works on pretty much the same principle as the sling. - -Very fancy harpoons of antler were also made in the latter half of -the period in western Europe. These harpoons had barbs on one or both -sides and a base which would slip out of the shaft (p. 82). Some have -engraved decoration. - - -THE BEGINNING OF ART - -[Illustration: THONG-STROPPER] - -In western Europe, at least, the period saw the beginning of several -kinds of art work. It is handy to break the art down into two great -groups: the movable art, and the cave paintings and sculpture. The -movable art group includes the scratchings, engravings, and modeling -which decorate tools and weapons. Knives, stroppers, spear-throwers, -harpoons, and sometimes just plain fragments of bone or antler are -often carved. There is also a group of large flat pebbles which seem -almost to have served as sketch blocks. The surfaces of these various -objects may show animals, or rather abstract floral designs, or -geometric designs. - -[Illustration: “VENUS” FIGURINE FROM WILLENDORF] - -Some of the movable art is not done on tools. The most remarkable -examples of this class are little figures of women. These women seem to -be pregnant, and their most female characteristics are much emphasized. -It is thought that these “Venus” or “Mother-goddess” figurines may be -meant to show the great forces of nature--fertility and the birth of -life. - - -CAVE PAINTINGS - -In the paintings on walls and ceilings of caves we have some examples -that compare with the best art of any time. The subjects were usually -animals, the great cold-weather beasts of the end of the Ice Age: the -mammoth, the wooly rhinoceros, the bison, the reindeer, the wild horse, -the bear, the wild boar, and wild cattle. As in the movable art, there -are different styles in the cave art. The really great cave art is -pretty well restricted to southern France and Cantabrian (northwestern) -Spain. - -There are several interesting things about the “Franco-Cantabrian” cave -art. It was done deep down in the darkest and most dangerous parts of -the caves, although the men lived only in the openings of caves. If you -think what they must have had for lights--crude lamps of hollowed stone -have been found, which must have burned some kind of oil or grease, -with a matted hair or fiber wick--and of the animals that may have -lurked in the caves, you’ll understand the part about danger. Then, -too, we’re sure the pictures these people painted were not simply to be -looked at and admired, for they painted one picture right over other -pictures which had been done earlier. Clearly, it was the _act_ of -_painting_ that counted. The painter had to go way down into the most -mysterious depths of the earth and create an animal in paint. Possibly -he believed that by doing this he gained some sort of magic power over -the same kind of animal when he hunted it in the open air. It certainly -doesn’t look as if he cared very much about the picture he painted--as -a finished product to be admired--for he or somebody else soon went -down and painted another animal right over the one he had done. - -The cave art of the Franco-Cantabrian style is one of the great -artistic achievements of all time. The subjects drawn are almost always -the larger animals of the time: the bison, wild cattle and horses, the -wooly rhinoceros, the mammoth, the wild boar, and the bear. In some of -the best examples, the beasts are drawn in full color and the paintings -are remarkably alive and charged with energy. They come from the hands -of men who knew the great animals well--knew the feel of their fur, the -tremendous drive of their muscles, and the danger one faced when he -hunted them. - -Another artistic style has been found in eastern Spain. It includes -lively drawings, often of people hunting with bow and arrow. The East -Spanish art is found on open rock faces and in rock-shelters. It is -less spectacular and apparently more recent than the Franco-Cantabrian -cave art. - - -LIFE AT THE END OF THE ICE AGE IN EUROPE - -Life in these times was probably as good as a hunter could expect it -to be. Game and fish seem to have been plentiful; berries and wild -fruits probably were, too. From France to Russia, great pits or -piles of animal bones have been found. Some of this killing was done -as our Plains Indians killed the buffalo--by stampeding them over -steep river banks or cliffs. There were also good tools for hunting, -however. In western Europe, people lived in the openings of caves and -under overhanging rocks. On the great plains of eastern Europe, very -crude huts were being built, half underground. The first part of this -time must have been cold, for it was the middle and end phases of the -last great glaciation. Northern Europe from Scotland to Scandinavia, -northern Germany and Russia, and also the higher mountains to the -south, were certainly covered with ice. But people had fire, and the -needles and tools that were used for scraping hides must mean that they -wore clothing. - -It is clear that men were thinking of a great variety of things beside -the tools that helped them get food and shelter. Such burials as we -find have more grave-gifts than before. Beads and ornaments and often -flint, bone, or antler tools are included in the grave, and sometimes -the body is sprinkled with red ochre. Red is the color of blood, which -means life, and of fire, which means heat. Professor Childe wonders if -the red ochre was a pathetic attempt at magic--to give back to the body -the heat that had gone from it. But pathetic or not, it is sure proof -that these people were already moved by death as men still are moved by -it. - -Their art is another example of the direction the human mind was -taking. And when I say human, I mean it in the fullest sense, for this -is the time in which fully modern man has appeared. On page 34, we -spoke of the Cro-Magnon group and of the Combe Capelle-Brünn group of -Caucasoids and of the Grimaldi “Negroids,” who are no longer believed -to be Negroid. I doubt that any one of these groups produced most of -the achievements of the times. It’s not yet absolutely sure which -particular group produced the great cave art. The artists were almost -certainly a blend of several (no doubt already mixed) groups. The pair -of Grimaldians were buried in a grave with a sprinkling of red ochre, -and were provided with shell beads and ornaments and with some blade -tools of flint. Regardless of the different names once given them by -the human paleontologists, each of these groups seems to have shared -equally in the cultural achievements of the times, for all that the -archeologists can say. - - -MICROLITHS - -One peculiar set of tools seems to serve as a marker for the very last -phase of the Ice Age in southwestern Europe. This tool-making habit is -also found about the shore of the Mediterranean basin, and it moved -into northern Europe as the last glaciation pulled northward. People -began making blade tools of very small size. They learned how to chip -very slender and tiny blades from a prepared core. Then they made these -little blades into tiny triangles, half-moons (“lunates”), trapezoids, -and several other geometric forms. These little tools are called -“microliths.” They are so small that most of them must have been fixed -in handles or shafts. - -[Illustration: MICROLITHS - - BLADE FRAGMENT - BURIN - LUNATE - TRAPEZOID - SCALENE TRIANGLE - ARROWHEAD] - -We have found several examples of microliths mounted in shafts. In -northern Europe, where their use soon spread, the microlithic triangles -or lunates were set in rows down each side of a bone or wood point. -One corner of each little triangle stuck out, and the whole thing -made a fine barbed harpoon. In historic times in Egypt, geometric -trapezoidal microliths were still in use as arrowheads. They were -fastened--broad end out--on the end of an arrow shaft. It seems queer -to give an arrow a point shaped like a “T.” Actually, the little points -were very sharp, and must have pierced the hides of animals very -easily. We also think that the broader cutting edge of the point may -have caused more bleeding than a pointed arrowhead would. In hunting -fleet-footed animals like the gazelle, which might run for miles after -being shot with an arrow, it was an advantage to cause as much bleeding -as possible, for the animal would drop sooner. - -We are not really sure where the microliths were first invented. There -is some evidence that they appear early in the Near East. Their use -was very common in northwest Africa but this came later. The microlith -makers who reached south Russia and central Europe possibly moved up -out of the Near East. Or it may have been the other way around; we -simply don’t yet know. - -Remember that the microliths we are talking about here were made from -carefully prepared little blades, and are often geometric in outline. -Each microlithic industry proper was made up, in good part, of such -tiny blade tools. But there were also some normal-sized blade tools and -even some flake scrapers, in most microlithic industries. I emphasize -this bladelet and the geometric character of the microlithic industries -of the western Old World, since there has sometimes been confusion in -the matter. Sometimes small flake chips, utilized as minute pointed -tools, have been called “microliths.” They may be _microlithic_ in size -in terms of the general meaning of the word, but they do not seem to -belong to the sub-tradition of the blade tool preparation habits which -we have been discussing here. - - -LATER BLADE-TOOL INDUSTRIES OF THE NEAR EAST AND AFRICA - -The blade-tool industries of normal size we talked about earlier spread -from Europe to central Siberia. We noted that blade tools were made -in western Asia too, and early, although Professor Garrod is no longer -sure that the whole tradition originated in the Near East. If you look -again at my chart (p. 72) you will note that in western Asia I list -some of the names of the western European industries, but with the -qualification “-like” (for example, “Gravettian-like”). The western -Asiatic blade-tool industries do vaguely recall some aspects of those -of western Europe, but we would probably be better off if we used -completely local names for them. The “Emiran” of my chart is such an -example; its industry includes a long spike-like blade point which has -no western European counterpart. - -When we last spoke of Africa (p. 66), I told you that stone tools -there were continuing in the Levalloisian flake tradition, and were -becoming smaller. At some time during this process, two new tool -types appeared in northern Africa: one was the Aterian point with -a tang (p. 67), and the other was a sort of “laurel leaf” point, -called the “Sbaikian.” These two tool types were both produced from -flakes. The Sbaikian points, especially, are roughly similar to some -of the Solutrean points of Europe. It has been suggested that both the -Sbaikian and Aterian points may be seen on their way to France through -their appearance in the Spanish cave deposits of Parpallo, but there is -also a rival “pre-Solutrean” in central Europe. We still do not know -whether there was any contact between the makers of these north African -tools and the Solutrean tool-makers. What does seem clear is that the -blade-tool tradition itself arrived late in northern Africa. - - -NETHER AFRICA - -Blade tools and “laurel leaf” points and some other probably late -stone tool types also appear in central and southern Africa. There -are geometric microliths on bladelets and even some coarse pottery in -east Africa. There is as yet no good way of telling just where these -items belong in time; in broad geological terms they are “late.” -Some people have guessed that they are as early as similar European -and Near Eastern examples, but I doubt it. The makers of small-sized -Levalloisian flake tools occupied much of Africa until very late in -time. - - -THE FAR EAST - -India and the Far East still seem to be going their own way. In India, -some blade tools have been found. These are not well dated, save that -we believe they must be post-Pleistocene. In the Far East it looks as -if the old chopper-tool tradition was still continuing. For Burma, -Dr. Movius feels this is fairly certain; for China he feels even more -certain. Actually, we know very little about the Far East at about the -time of the last glaciation. This is a shame, too, as you will soon -agree. - - -THE NEW WORLD BECOMES INHABITED - -At some time toward the end of the last great glaciation--almost -certainly after 20,000 years ago--people began to move over Bering -Strait, from Asia into America. As you know, the American Indians have -been assumed to be basically Mongoloids. New studies of blood group -types make this somewhat uncertain, but there is no doubt that the -ancestors of the American Indians came from Asia. - -The stone-tool traditions of Europe, Africa, the Near and Middle East, -and central Siberia, did _not_ move into the New World. With only a -very few special or late exceptions, there are _no_ core-bifaces, -flakes, or blade tools of the Old World. Such things just haven’t been -found here. - -This is why I say it’s a shame we don’t know more of the end of the -chopper-tool tradition in the Far East. According to Weidenreich, -the Mongoloids were in the Far East long before the end of the last -glaciation. If the genetics of the blood group types do demand a -non-Mongoloid ancestry for the American Indians, who else may have been -in the Far East 25,000 years ago? We know a little about the habits -for making stone tools which these first people brought with them, -and these habits don’t conform with those of the western Old World. -We’d better keep our eyes open for whatever happened to the end of -the chopper-tool tradition in northern China; already there are hints -that it lasted late there. Also we should watch future excavations -in eastern Siberia. Perhaps we shall find the chopper-tool tradition -spreading up that far. - - -THE NEW ERA - -Perhaps it comes in part from the way I read the evidence and perhaps -in part it is only intuition, but I feel that the materials of this -chapter suggest a new era in the ways of life. Before about 40,000 -years ago, people simply “gathered” their food, wandering over large -areas to scavenge or to hunt in a simple sort of way. But here we -have seen them “settling-in” more, perhaps restricting themselves in -their wanderings and adapting themselves to a given locality in more -intensive ways. This intensification might be suggested by the word -“collecting.” The ways of life we described in the earlier chapters -were “food-gathering” ways, but now an era of “food-collecting” has -begun. We shall see further intensifications of it in the next chapter. - - - - -End and PRELUDE - -[Illustration] - - -Up to the end of the last glaciation, we prehistorians have a -relatively comfortable time schedule. The farther back we go the less -exact we can be about time and details. Elbow-room of five, ten, -even fifty or more thousands of years becomes available for us to -maneuver in as we work backward in time. But now our story has come -forward to the point where more exact methods of dating are at hand. -The radioactive carbon method reaches back into the span of the last -glaciation. There are other methods, developed by the geologists and -paleobotanists, which supplement and extend the usefulness of the -radioactive carbon dates. And, happily, as our means of being more -exact increases, our story grows more exciting. There are also more -details of culture for us to deal with, which add to the interest. - - -CHANGES AT THE END OF THE ICE AGE - -The last great glaciation of the Ice Age was a two-part affair, with a -sub-phase at the end of the second part. In Europe the last sub-phase -of this glaciation commenced somewhere around 15,000 years ago. Then -the glaciers began to melt back, for the last time. Remember that -Professor Antevs (p. 19) isn’t sure the Ice Age is over yet! This -melting sometimes went by fits and starts, and the weather wasn’t -always changing for the better; but there was at least one time when -European weather was even better than it is now. - -The melting back of the glaciers and the weather fluctuations caused -other changes, too. We know a fair amount about these changes in -Europe. In an earlier chapter, we said that the whole Ice Age was a -matter of continual change over long periods of time. As the last -glaciers began to melt back some interesting things happened to mankind. - -In Europe, along with the melting of the last glaciers, geography -itself was changing. Britain and Ireland had certainly become islands -by 5000 B.C. The Baltic was sometimes a salt sea, sometimes a large -fresh-water lake. Forests began to grow where the glaciers had been, -and in what had once been the cold tundra areas in front of the -glaciers. The great cold-weather animals--the mammoth and the wooly -rhinoceros--retreated northward and finally died out. It is probable -that the efficient hunting of the earlier people of 20,000 or 25,000 -to about 12,000 years ago had helped this process along (see p. 86). -Europeans, especially those of the post-glacial period, had to keep -changing to keep up with the times. - -The archeological materials for the time from 10,000 to 6000 B.C. seem -simpler than those of the previous five thousand years. The great cave -art of France and Spain had gone; so had the fine carving in bone and -antler. Smaller, speedier animals were moving into the new forests. New -ways of hunting them, or ways of getting other food, had to be found. -Hence, new tools and weapons were necessary. Some of the people who -moved into northern Germany were successful reindeer hunters. Then the -reindeer moved off to the north, and again new sources of food had to -be found. - - -THE READJUSTMENTS COMPLETED IN EUROPE - -After a few thousand years, things began to look better. Or at least -we can say this: By about 6000 B.C. we again get hotter archeological -materials. The best of these come from the north European area: -Britain, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, north Germany, southern Norway and -Sweden. Much of this north European material comes from bogs and swamps -where it had become water-logged and has kept very well. Thus we have -much more complete _assemblages_[4] than for any time earlier. - - [4] “Assemblage” is a useful word when there are different kinds of - archeological materials belonging together, from one area and of - one time. An assemblage is made up of a number of “industries” - (that is, all the tools in chipped stone, all the tools in - bone, all the tools in wood, the traces of houses, etc.) and - everything else that manages to survive, such as the art, the - burials, the bones of the animals used as food, and the traces - of plant foods; in fact, everything that has been left to us - and can be used to help reconstruct the lives of the people to - whom it once belonged. Our own present-day “assemblage” would be - the sum total of all the objects in our mail-order catalogues, - department stores and supply houses of every sort, our churches, - our art galleries and other buildings, together with our roads, - canals, dams, irrigation ditches, and any other traces we might - leave of ourselves, from graves to garbage dumps. Not everything - would last, so that an archeologist digging us up--say 2,000 - years from now--would find only the most durable items in our - assemblage. - -The best known of these assemblages is the _Maglemosian_, named after a -great Danish peat-swamp where much has been found. - -[Illustration: SKETCH OF MAGLEMOSIAN ASSEMBLAGE - - CHIPPED STONE - HEMP - GROUND STONE - BONE AND ANTLER - WOOD] - -In the Maglemosian assemblage the flint industry was still very -important. Blade tools, tanged arrow points, and burins were still -made, but there were also axes for cutting the trees in the new -forests. Moreover, the tiny microlithic blades, in a variety of -geometric forms, are also found. Thus, a specialized tradition that -possibly began east of the Mediterranean had reached northern Europe. -There was also a ground stone industry; some axes and club-heads were -made by grinding and polishing rather than by chipping. The industries -in bone and antler show a great variety of tools: axes, fish-hooks, -fish spears, handles and hafts for other tools, harpoons, and clubs. -A remarkable industry in wood has been preserved. Paddles, sled -runners, handles for tools, and bark floats for fish-nets have been -found. There are even fish-nets made of plant fibers. Canoes of some -kind were no doubt made. Bone and antler tools were decorated with -simple patterns, and amber was collected. Wooden bows and arrows are -found. - -It seems likely that the Maglemosian bog finds are remains of summer -camps, and that in winter the people moved to higher and drier regions. -Childe calls them the “Forest folk”; they probably lived much the -same sort of life as did our pre-agricultural Indians of the north -central states. They hunted small game or deer; they did a great deal -of fishing; they collected what plant food they could find. In fact, -their assemblage shows us again that remarkable ability of men to adapt -themselves to change. They had succeeded in domesticating the dog; he -was still a very wolf-like dog, but his long association with mankind -had now begun. Professor Coon believes that these people were direct -descendants of the men of the glacial age and that they had much the -same appearance. He believes that most of the Ice Age survivors still -extant are living today in the northwestern European area. - - -SOUTH AND CENTRAL EUROPE PERHAPS AS READJUSTED AS THE NORTH - -There is always one trouble with things that come from areas where -preservation is exceptionally good: The very quantity of materials in -such an assemblage tends to make things from other areas look poor -and simple, although they may not have been so originally at all. The -assemblages of the people who lived to the south of the Maglemosian -area may also have been quite large and varied; but, unfortunately, -relatively little of the southern assemblages has lasted. The -water-logged sites of the Maglemosian area preserved a great deal -more. Hence the Maglemosian itself _looks_ quite advanced to us, when -we compare it with the few things that have happened to last in other -areas. If we could go back and wander over the Europe of eight thousand -years ago, we would probably find that the peoples of France, central -Europe, and south central Russia were just as advanced as those of the -north European-Baltic belt. - -South of the north European belt the hunting-food-collecting peoples -were living on as best they could during this time. One interesting -group, which seems to have kept to the regions of sandy soil and scrub -forest, made great quantities of geometric microliths. These are the -materials called _Tardenoisian_. The materials of the “Forest folk” of -France and central Europe generally are called _Azilian_; Dr. Movius -believes the term might best be restricted to the area south of the -Loire River. - - -HOW MUCH REAL CHANGE WAS THERE? - -You can see that no really _basic_ change in the way of life has yet -been described. Childe sees the problem that faced the Europeans of -10,000 to 3000 B.C. as a problem in readaptation to the post-glacial -forest environment. By 6000 B.C. some quite successful solutions of -the problem--like the Maglemosian--had been made. The upsets that came -with the melting of the last ice gradually brought about all sorts of -changes in the tools and food-getting habits, but the people themselves -were still just as much simple hunters, fishers, and food-collectors as -they had been in 25,000 B.C. It could be said that they changed just -enough so that they would not have to change. But there is a bit more -to it than this. - -Professor Mathiassen of Copenhagen, who knows the archeological remains -of this time very well, poses a question. He speaks of the material -as being neither rich nor progressive, in fact “rather stagnant,” but -he goes on to add that the people had a certain “receptiveness” and -were able to adapt themselves quickly when the next change did come. -My own understanding of the situation is that the “Forest folk” made -nothing as spectacular as had the producers of the earlier Magdalenian -assemblage and the Franco-Cantabrian art. On the other hand, they -_seem_ to have been making many more different kinds of tools for many -more different kinds of tasks than had their Ice Age forerunners. I -emphasize “seem” because the preservation in the Maglemosian bogs -is very complete; certainly we cannot list anywhere near as many -different things for earlier times as we did for the Maglemosians -(p. 94). I believe this experimentation with all kinds of new tools -and gadgets, this intensification of adaptiveness (p. 91), this -“receptiveness,” even if it is still only pointed toward hunting, -fishing, and food-collecting, is an important thing. - -Remember that the only marker we have handy for the _beginning_ of -this tendency toward “receptiveness” and experimentation is the -little microlithic blade tools of various geometric forms. These, we -saw, began before the last ice had melted away, and they lasted on -in use for a very long time. I wish there were a better marker than -the microliths but I do not know of one. Remember, too, that as yet -we can only use the microliths as a marker in Europe and about the -Mediterranean. - - -CHANGES IN OTHER AREAS? - -All this last section was about Europe. How about the rest of the world -when the last glaciers were melting away? - -We simply don’t know much about this particular time in other parts -of the world except in Europe, the Mediterranean basin and the Middle -East. People were certainly continuing to move into the New World by -way of Siberia and the Bering Strait about this time. But for the -greater part of Africa and Asia, we do not know exactly what was -happening. Some day, we shall no doubt find out; today we are without -clear information. - - -REAL CHANGE AND PRELUDE IN THE NEAR EAST - -The appearance of the microliths and the developments made by the -“Forest folk” of northwestern Europe also mark an end. They show us -the terminal phase of the old food-collecting way of life. It grows -increasingly clear that at about the same time that the Maglemosian and -other “Forest folk” were adapting themselves to hunting, fishing, and -collecting in new ways to fit the post-glacial environment, something -completely new was being made ready in western Asia. - -Unfortunately, we do not have as much understanding of the climate and -environment of the late Ice Age in western Asia as we have for most -of Europe. Probably the weather was never so violent or life quite -so rugged as it was in northern Europe. We know that the microliths -made their appearance in western Asia at least by 10,000 B.C. and -possibly earlier, marking the beginning of the terminal phase of -food-collecting. Then, gradually, we begin to see the build-up towards -the first _basic change_ in human life. - -This change amounted to a revolution just as important as the -Industrial Revolution. In it, men first learned to domesticate -plants and animals. They began _producing_ their food instead of -simply gathering or collecting it. When their food-production -became reasonably effective, people could and did settle down in -village-farming communities. With the appearance of the little farming -villages, a new way of life was actually under way. Professor Childe -has good reason to speak of the “food-producing revolution,” for it was -indeed a revolution. - - -QUESTIONS ABOUT CAUSE - -We do not yet know _how_ and _why_ this great revolution took place. We -are only just beginning to put the questions properly. I suspect the -answers will concern some delicate and subtle interplay between man and -nature. Clearly, both the level of culture and the natural condition of -the environment must have been ready for the great change, before the -change itself could come about. - -It is going to take years of co-operative field work by both -archeologists and the natural scientists who are most helpful to them -before the _how_ and _why_ answers begin to appear. Anthropologically -trained archeologists are fascinated with the cultures of men in times -of great change. About ten or twelve thousand years ago, the general -level of culture in many parts of the world seems to have been ready -for change. In northwestern Europe, we saw that cultures “changed -just enough so that they would not have to change.” We linked this to -environmental changes with the coming of post-glacial times. - -In western Asia, we archeologists can prove that the food-producing -revolution actually took place. We can see _the_ important consequence -of effective domestication of plants and animals in the appearance of -the settled village-farming community. And within the village-farming -community was the seed of civilization. The way in which effective -domestication of plants and animals came about, however, must also be -linked closely with the natural environment. Thus the archeologists -will not solve the _how_ and _why_ questions alone--they will need the -help of interested natural scientists in the field itself. - - -PRECONDITIONS FOR THE REVOLUTION - -Especially at this point in our story, we must remember how culture and -environment go hand in hand. Neither plants nor animals domesticate -themselves; men domesticate them. Furthermore, men usually domesticate -only those plants and animals which are useful. There is a good -question here: What is cultural usefulness? But I shall side-step it to -save time. Men cannot domesticate plants and animals that do not exist -in the environment where the men live. Also, there are certainly some -animals and probably some plants that resist domestication, although -they might be useful. - -This brings me back again to the point that _both_ the level of culture -and the natural condition of the environment--with the proper plants -and animals in it--must have been ready before domestication could -have happened. But this is precondition, not cause. Why did effective -food-production happen first in the Near East? Why did it happen -independently in the New World slightly later? Why also in the Far -East? Why did it happen at all? Why are all human beings not still -living as the Maglemosians did? These are the questions we still have -to face. - - -CULTURAL “RECEPTIVENESS” AND PROMISING ENVIRONMENTS - -Until the archeologists and the natural scientists--botanists, -geologists, zoologists, and general ecologists--have spent many more -years on the problem, we shall not have full _how_ and _why_ answers. I -do think, however, that we are beginning to understand what to look for. - -We shall have to learn much more of what makes the cultures of men -“receptive” and experimental. Did change in the environment alone -force it? Was it simply a case of Professor Toynbee’s “challenge and -response?” I cannot believe the answer is quite that simple. Were it -so simple, we should want to know why the change hadn’t come earlier, -along with earlier environmental changes. We shall not know the answer, -however, until we have excavated the traces of many more cultures of -the time in question. We shall doubtless also have to learn more about, -and think imaginatively about, the simpler cultures still left today. -The “mechanics” of culture in general will be bound to interest us. - -It will also be necessary to learn much more of the environments of -10,000 to 12,000 years ago. In which regions of the world were the -natural conditions most promising? Did this promise include plants and -animals which could be domesticated, or did it only offer new ways of -food-collecting? There is much work to do on this problem, but we are -beginning to get some general hints. - -Before I begin to detail the hints we now have from western Asia, I -want to do two things. First, I shall tell you of an old theory as to -how food-production might have appeared. Second, I will bother you with -some definitions which should help us in our thinking as the story goes -on. - - -AN OLD THEORY AS TO THE CAUSE OF THE REVOLUTION - -The idea that change would result, if the balance between nature -and culture became upset, is of course not a new one. For at least -twenty-five years, there has been a general theory as to _how_ the -food-producing revolution happened. This theory depends directly on the -idea of natural change in the environment. - -The five thousand years following about 10,000 B.C. must have been -very difficult ones, the theory begins. These were the years when -the most marked melting of the last glaciers was going on. While the -glaciers were in place, the climate to the south of them must have been -different from the climate in those areas today. You have no doubt read -that people once lived in regions now covered by the Sahara Desert. -This is true; just when is not entirely clear. The theory is that -during the time of the glaciers, there was a broad belt of rain winds -south of the glaciers. These rain winds would have kept north Africa, -the Nile Valley, and the Middle East green and fertile. But when the -glaciers melted back to the north, the belt of rain winds is supposed -to have moved north too. Then the people living south and east of the -Mediterranean would have found that their water supply was drying up, -that the animals they hunted were dying or moving away, and that the -plant foods they collected were dried up and scarce. - -According to the theory, all this would have been true except in the -valleys of rivers and in oases in the growing deserts. Here, in the -only places where water was left, the men and animals and plants would -have clustered. They would have been forced to live close to one -another, in order to live at all. Presently the men would have seen -that some animals were more useful or made better food than others, -and so they would have begun to protect these animals from their -natural enemies. The men would also have been forced to try new plant -foods--foods which possibly had to be prepared before they could be -eaten. Thus, with trials and errors, but by being forced to live close -to plants and animals, men would have learned to domesticate them. - - -THE OLD THEORY TOO SIMPLE FOR THE FACTS - -This theory was set up before we really knew anything in detail about -the later prehistory of the Near and Middle East. We now know that -the facts which have been found don’t fit the old theory at all well. -Also, I have yet to find an American meteorologist who feels that we -know enough about the changes in the weather pattern to say that it can -have been so simple and direct. And, of course, the glacial ice which -began melting after 12,000 years ago was merely the last sub-phase of -the last great glaciation. There had also been three earlier periods -of great alpine glaciers, and long periods of warm weather in between. -If the rain belt moved north as the glaciers melted for the last time, -it must have moved in the same direction in earlier times. Thus, the -forced neighborliness of men, plants, and animals in river valleys and -oases must also have happened earlier. Why didn’t domestication happen -earlier, then? - -Furthermore, it does not seem to be in the oases and river valleys -that we have our first or only traces of either food-production -or the earliest farming villages. These traces are also in the -hill-flanks of the mountains of western Asia. Our earliest sites of the -village-farmers do not seem to indicate a greatly different climate -from that which the same region now shows. In fact, everything we now -know suggests that the old theory was just too simple an explanation to -have been the true one. The only reason I mention it--beyond correcting -the ideas you may get in the general texts--is that it illustrates the -kind of thinking we shall have to do, even if it is doubtless wrong in -detail. - -We archeologists shall have to depend much more than we ever have on -the natural scientists who can really help us. I can tell you this from -experience. I had the great good fortune to have on my expedition staff -in Iraq in 1954-55, a geologist, a botanist, and a zoologist. Their -studies added whole new bands of color to my spectrum of thinking about -_how_ and _why_ the revolution took place and how the village-farming -community began. But it was only a beginning; as I said earlier, we are -just now learning to ask the proper questions. - - -ABOUT STAGES AND ERAS - -Now come some definitions, so I may describe my material more easily. -Archeologists have always loved to make divisions and subdivisions -within the long range of materials which they have found. They often -disagree violently about which particular assemblage of material -goes into which subdivision, about what the subdivisions should be -named, about what the subdivisions really mean culturally. Some -archeologists, probably through habit, favor an old scheme of Grecized -names for the subdivisions: paleolithic, mesolithic, neolithic. I -refuse to use these words myself. They have meant too many different -things to too many different people and have tended to hide some pretty -fuzzy thinking. Probably you haven’t even noticed my own scheme of -subdivision up to now, but I’d better tell you in general what it is. - -I think of the earliest great group of archeological materials, from -which we can deduce only a food-gathering way of culture, as the -_food-gathering stage_. I say “stage” rather than “age,” because it -is not quite over yet; there are still a few primitive people in -out-of-the-way parts of the world who remain in the _food-gathering -stage_. In fact, Professor Julian Steward would probably prefer to call -it a food-gathering _level_ of existence, rather than a stage. This -would be perfectly acceptable to me. I also tend to find myself using -_collecting_, rather than _gathering_, for the more recent aspects or -era of the stage, as the word “collecting” appears to have more sense -of purposefulness and specialization than does “gathering” (see p. -91). - -Now, while I think we could make several possible subdivisions of the -food-gathering stage--I call my subdivisions of stages _eras_[5]--I -believe the only one which means much to us here is the last or -_terminal sub-era of food-collecting_ of the whole food-gathering -stage. The microliths seem to mark its approach in the northwestern -part of the Old World. It is really shown best in the Old World by -the materials of the “Forest folk,” the cultural adaptation to the -post-glacial environment in northwestern Europe. We talked about -the “Forest folk” at the beginning of this chapter, and I used the -Maglemosian assemblage of Denmark as an example. - - [5] It is difficult to find words which have a sequence or gradation - of meaning with respect to both development and a range of time - in the past, or with a range of time from somewhere in the past - which is perhaps not yet ended. One standard Webster definition - of _stage_ is: “One of the steps into which the material - development of man ... is divided.” I cannot find any dictionary - definition that suggests which of the words, _stage_ or _era_, - has the meaning of a longer span of time. Therefore, I have - chosen to let my eras be shorter, and to subdivide my stages - into eras. Webster gives _era_ as: “A signal stage of history, - an epoch.” When I want to subdivide my eras, I find myself using - _sub-eras_. Thus I speak of the _eras_ within a _stage_ and of - the _sub-eras_ within an _era_; that is, I do so when I feel - that I really have to, and when the evidence is clear enough to - allow it. - -The food-producing revolution ushers in the _food-producing stage_. -This stage began to be replaced by the _industrial stage_ only about -two hundred years ago. Now notice that my stage divisions are in terms -of technology and economics. We must think sharply to be sure that the -subdivisions of the stages, the eras, are in the same terms. This does -not mean that I think technology and economics are the only important -realms of culture. It is rather that for most of prehistoric time the -materials left to the archeologists tend to limit our deductions to -technology and economics. - -I’m so soon out of my competence, as conventional ancient history -begins, that I shall only suggest the earlier eras of the -food-producing stage to you. This book is about prehistory, and I’m not -a universal historian. - - -THE TWO EARLIEST ERAS OF THE FOOD-PRODUCING STAGE - -The food-producing stage seems to appear in western Asia with really -revolutionary suddenness. It is seen by the relative speed with which -the traces of new crafts appear in the earliest village-farming -community sites we’ve dug. It is seen by the spread and multiplication -of these sites themselves, and the remarkable growth in human -population we deduce from this increase in sites. We’ll look at some -of these sites and the archeological traces they yield in the next -chapter. When such village sites begin to appear, I believe we are in -the _era of the primary village-farming community_. I also believe this -is the second era of the food-producing stage. - -The first era of the food-producing stage, I believe, was an _era of -incipient cultivation and animal domestication_. I keep saying “I -believe” because the actual evidence for this earlier era is so slight -that one has to set it up mainly by playing a hunch for it. The reason -for playing the hunch goes about as follows. - -One thing we seem to be able to see, in the food-collecting era in -general, is a tendency for people to begin to settle down. This -settling down seemed to become further intensified in the terminal -era. How this is connected with Professor Mathiassen’s “receptiveness” -and the tendency to be experimental, we do not exactly know. The -evidence from the New World comes into play here as well as that from -the Old World. With this settling down in one place, the people of the -terminal era--especially the “Forest folk” whom we know best--began -making a great variety of new things. I remarked about this earlier in -the chapter. Dr. Robert M. Adams is of the opinion that this atmosphere -of experimentation with new tools--with new ways of collecting food--is -the kind of atmosphere in which one might expect trials at planting -and at animal domestication to have been made. We first begin to find -traces of more permanent life in outdoor camp sites, although caves -were still inhabited at the beginning of the terminal era. It is not -surprising at all that the “Forest folk” had already domesticated the -dog. In this sense, the whole era of food-collecting was becoming ready -and almost “incipient” for cultivation and animal domestication. - -Northwestern Europe was not the place for really effective beginnings -in agriculture and animal domestication. These would have had to take -place in one of those natural environments of promise, where a variety -of plants and animals, each possible of domestication, was available in -the wild state. Let me spell this out. Really effective food-production -must include a variety of items to make up a reasonably well-rounded -diet. The food-supply so produced must be trustworthy, even though -the food-producing peoples themselves might be happy to supplement -it with fish and wild strawberries, just as we do when such things -are available. So, as we said earlier, part of our problem is that -of finding a region with a natural environment which includes--and -did include, some ten thousand years ago--a variety of possibly -domesticable wild plants and animals. - - -NUCLEAR AREAS - -Now comes the last of my definitions. A region with a natural -environment which included a variety of wild plants and animals, -both possible and ready for domestication, would be a central -or core or _nuclear area_, that is, it would be when and _if_ -food-production took place within it. It is pretty hard for me to -imagine food-production having ever made an independent start outside -such a nuclear area, although there may be some possible nuclear areas -in which food-production never took place (possibly in parts of Africa, -for example). - -We know of several such nuclear areas. In the New World, Middle America -and the Andean highlands make up one or two; it is my understanding -that the evidence is not yet clear as to which. There seems to have -been a nuclear area somewhere in southeastern Asia, in the Malay -peninsula or Burma perhaps, connected with the early cultivation of -taro, breadfruit, the banana and the mango. Possibly the cultivation -of rice and the domestication of the chicken and of zebu cattle and -the water buffalo belong to this southeast Asiatic nuclear area. We -know relatively little about it archeologically, as yet. The nuclear -area which was the scene of the earliest experiment in effective -food-production was in western Asia. Since I know it best, I shall use -it as my example. - - -THE NUCLEAR NEAR EAST - -The nuclear area of western Asia is naturally the one of greatest -interest to people of the western cultural tradition. Our cultural -heritage began within it. The area itself is the region of the hilly -flanks of rain-watered grass-land which build up to the high mountain -ridges of Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and Palestine. The map on page -125 indicates the region. If you have a good atlas, try to locate the -zone which surrounds the drainage basin of the Tigris and Euphrates -Rivers at elevations of from approximately 2,000 to 5,000 feet. The -lower alluvial land of the Tigris-Euphrates basin itself has very -little rainfall. Some years ago Professor James Henry Breasted called -the alluvial lands of the Tigris-Euphrates a part of the “fertile -crescent.” These alluvial lands are very fertile if irrigated. Breasted -was most interested in the oriental civilizations of conventional -ancient history, and irrigation had been discovered before they -appeared. - -The country of hilly flanks above Breasted’s crescent receives from -10 to 20 or more inches of winter rainfall each year, which is about -what Kansas has. Above the hilly-flanks zone tower the peaks and ridges -of the Lebanon-Amanus chain bordering the coast-line from Palestine -to Turkey, the Taurus Mountains of southern Turkey, and the Zagros -range of the Iraq-Iran borderland. This rugged mountain frame for our -hilly-flanks zone rises to some magnificent alpine scenery, with peaks -of from ten to fifteen thousand feet in elevation. There are several -gaps in the Mediterranean coastal portion of the frame, through which -the winter’s rain-bearing winds from the sea may break so as to carry -rain to the foothills of the Taurus and the Zagros. - -The picture I hope you will have from this description is that of an -intermediate hilly-flanks zone lying between two regions of extremes. -The lower Tigris-Euphrates basin land is low and far too dry and hot -for agriculture based on rainfall alone; to the south and southwest, it -merges directly into the great desert of Arabia. The mountains which -lie above the hilly-flanks zone are much too high and rugged to have -encouraged farmers. - - -THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE NUCLEAR NEAR EAST - -The more we learn of this hilly-flanks zone that I describe, the -more it seems surely to have been a nuclear area. This is where we -archeologists need, and are beginning to get, the help of natural -scientists. They are coming to the conclusion that the natural -environment of the hilly-flanks zone today is much as it was some eight -to ten thousand years ago. There are still two kinds of wild wheat and -a wild barley, and the wild sheep, goat, and pig. We have discovered -traces of each of these at about nine thousand years ago, also traces -of wild ox, horse, and dog, each of which appears to be the probable -ancestor of the domesticated form. In fact, at about nine thousand -years ago, the two wheats, the barley, and at least the goat, were -already well on the road to domestication. - -The wild wheats give us an interesting clue. They are only available -together with the wild barley within the hilly-flanks zone. While the -wild barley grows in a variety of elevations and beyond the zone, -at least one of the wild wheats does not seem to grow below the hill -country. As things look at the moment, the domestication of both the -wheats together could _only_ have taken place within the hilly-flanks -zone. Barley seems to have first come into cultivation due to its -presence as a weed in already cultivated wheat fields. There is also -a suggestion--there is still much more to learn in the matter--that -the animals which were first domesticated were most at home up in the -hilly-flanks zone in their wild state. - -With a single exception--that of the dog--the earliest positive -evidence of domestication includes the two forms of wheat, the barley, -and the goat. The evidence comes from within the hilly-flanks zone. -However, it comes from a settled village proper, Jarmo (which I’ll -describe in the next chapter), and is thus from the era of the primary -village-farming community. We are still without positive evidence of -domesticated grain and animals in the first era of the food-producing -stage, that of incipient cultivation and animal domestication. - - -THE ERA OF INCIPIENT CULTIVATION AND ANIMAL DOMESTICATION - -I said above (p. 105) that my era of incipient cultivation and animal -domestication is mainly set up by playing a hunch. Although we cannot -really demonstrate it--and certainly not in the Near East--it would -be very strange for food-collectors not to have known a great deal -about the plants and animals most useful to them. They do seem to have -domesticated the dog. We can easily imagine them remembering to go -back, season after season, to a particular patch of ground where seeds -or acorns or berries grew particularly well. Most human beings, unless -they are extremely hungry, are attracted to baby animals, and many wild -pups or fawns or piglets must have been brought back alive by hunting -parties. - -In this last sense, man has probably always been an incipient -cultivator and domesticator. But I believe that Adams is right in -suggesting that this would be doubly true with the experimenters of -the terminal era of food-collecting. We noticed that they also seem -to have had a tendency to settle down. Now my hunch goes that _when_ -this experimentation and settling down took place within a potential -nuclear area--where a whole constellation of plants and animals -possible of domestication was available--the change was easily made. -Professor Charles A. Reed, our field colleague in zoology, agrees that -year-round settlement with plant domestication probably came before -there were important animal domestications. - - -INCIPIENT ERAS AND NUCLEAR AREAS - -I have put this scheme into a simple chart (p. 111) with the names -of a few of the sites we are going to talk about. You will see that my -hunch means that there are eras of incipient cultivation _only_ within -nuclear areas. In a nuclear area, the terminal era of food-collecting -would probably have been quite short. I do not know for how long a time -the era of incipient cultivation and domestication would have lasted, -but perhaps for several thousand years. Then it passed on into the era -of the primary village-farming community. - -Outside a nuclear area, the terminal era of food-collecting would last -for a long time; in a few out-of-the-way parts of the world, it still -hangs on. It would end in any particular place through contact with -and the spread of ideas of people who had passed on into one of the -more developed eras. In many cases, the terminal era of food-collecting -was ended by the incoming of the food-producing peoples themselves. -For example, the practices of food-production were carried into Europe -by the actual movement of some numbers of peoples (we don’t know how -many) who had reached at least the level of the primary village-farming -community. The “Forest folk” learned food-production from them. There -was never an era of incipient cultivation and domestication proper in -Europe, if my hunch is right. - - -ARCHEOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES IN SEEING THE INCIPIENT ERA - -The way I see it, two things were required in order that an era of -incipient cultivation and domestication could begin. First, there had -to be the natural environment of a nuclear area, with its whole group -of plants and animals capable of domestication. This is the aspect of -the matter which we’ve said is directly given by nature. But it is -quite possible that such an environment with such a group of plants -and animals in it may have existed well before ten thousand years ago -in the Near East. It is also quite possible that the same promising -condition may have existed in regions which never developed into -nuclear areas proper. Here, again, we come back to the cultural factor. -I think it was that “atmosphere of experimentation” we’ve talked about -once or twice before. I can’t define it for you, other than to say that -by the end of the Ice Age, the general level of many cultures was ready -for change. Ask me how and why this was so, and I’ll tell you we don’t -know yet, and that if we did understand this kind of question, there -would be no need for me to go on being a prehistorian! - -[Illustration: POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIPS OF STAGES AND ERAS IN WESTERN -ASIA AND NORTHEASTERN AFRICA] - -Now since this was an era of incipience, of the birth of new ideas, -and of experimentation, it is very difficult to see its traces -archeologically. New tools having to do with the new ways of getting -and, in fact, producing food would have taken some time to develop. -It need not surprise us too much if we cannot find hoes for planting -and sickles for reaping grain at the very beginning. We might expect -a time of making-do with some of the older tools, or with make-shift -tools, for some of the new jobs. The present-day wild cousin of the -domesticated sheep still lives in the mountains of western Asia. It has -no wool, only a fine down under hair like that of a deer, so it need -not surprise us to find neither the whorls used for spinning nor traces -of woolen cloth. It must have taken some time for a wool-bearing sheep -to develop and also time for the invention of the new tools which go -with weaving. It would have been the same with other kinds of tools for -the new way of life. - -It is difficult even for an experienced comparative zoologist to tell -which are the bones of domesticated animals and which are those of -their wild cousins. This is especially so because the animal bones the -archeologists find are usually fragmentary. Furthermore, we do not have -a sort of library collection of the skeletons of the animals or an -herbarium of the plants of those times, against which the traces which -the archeologists find may be checked. We are only beginning to get -such collections for the modern wild forms of animals and plants from -some of our nuclear areas. In the nuclear area in the Near East, some -of the wild animals, at least, have already become extinct. There are -no longer wild cattle or wild horses in western Asia. We know they were -there from the finds we’ve made in caves of late Ice Age times, and -from some slightly later sites. - - -SITES WITH ANTIQUITIES OF THE INCIPIENT ERA - -So far, we know only a very few sites which would suit my notion of the -incipient era of cultivation and animal domestication. I am closing -this chapter with descriptions of two of the best Near Eastern examples -I know of. You may not be satisfied that what I am able to describe -makes a full-bodied era of development at all. Remember, however, that -I’ve told you I’m largely playing a kind of a hunch, and also that the -archeological materials of this era will always be extremely difficult -to interpret. At the beginning of any new way of life, there will be a -great tendency for people to make-do, at first, with tools and habits -they are already used to. I would suspect that a great deal of this -making-do went on almost to the end of this era. - - -THE NATUFIAN, AN ASSEMBLAGE OF THE INCIPIENT ERA - -The assemblage called the Natufian comes from the upper layers of a -number of caves in Palestine. Traces of its flint industry have also -turned up in Syria and Lebanon. We don’t know just how old it is. I -guess that it probably falls within five hundred years either way of -about 5000 B.C. - -Until recently, the people who produced the Natufian assemblage were -thought to have been only cave dwellers, but now at least three open -air Natufian sites have been briefly described. In their best-known -dwelling place, on Mount Carmel, the Natufian folk lived in the open -mouth of a large rock-shelter and on the terrace in front of it. On the -terrace, they had set at least two short curving lines of stones; but -these were hardly architecture; they seem more like benches or perhaps -the low walls of open pens. There were also one or two small clusters -of stones laid like paving, and a ring of stones around a hearth or -fireplace. One very round and regular basin-shaped depression had been -cut into the rocky floor of the terrace, and there were other less -regular basin-like depressions. In the newly reported open air sites, -there seem to have been huts with rounded corners. - -Most of the finds in the Natufian layer of the Mount Carmel cave were -flints. About 80 per cent of these flint tools were microliths made -by the regular working of tiny blades into various tools, some having -geometric forms. The larger flint tools included backed blades, burins, -scrapers, a few arrow points, some larger hacking or picking tools, and -one special type. This last was the sickle blade. - -We know a sickle blade of flint when we see one, because of a strange -polish or sheen which seems to develop on the cutting edge when the -blade has been used to cut grasses or grain, or--perhaps--reeds. In -the Natufian, we have even found the straight bone handles in which a -number of flint sickle blades were set in a line. - -There was a small industry in ground or pecked stone (that is, abraded -not chipped) in the Natufian. This included some pestle and mortar -fragments. The mortars are said to have a deep and narrow hole, -and some of the pestles show traces of red ochre. We are not sure -that these mortars and pestles were also used for grinding food. In -addition, there were one or two bits of carving in stone. - - -NATUFIAN ANTIQUITIES IN OTHER MATERIALS; BURIALS AND PEOPLE - -The Natufian industry in bone was quite rich. It included, beside the -sickle hafts mentioned above, points and harpoons, straight and curved -types of fish-hooks, awls, pins and needles, and a variety of beads and -pendants. There were also beads and pendants of pierced teeth and shell. - -A number of Natufian burials have been found in the caves; some burials -were grouped together in one grave. The people who were buried within -the Mount Carmel cave were laid on their backs in an extended position, -while those on the terrace seem to have been “flexed” (placed in their -graves in a curled-up position). This may mean no more than that it was -easier to dig a long hole in cave dirt than in the hard-packed dirt of -the terrace. The people often had some kind of object buried with them, -and several of the best collections of beads come from the burials. On -two of the skulls there were traces of elaborate head-dresses of shell -beads. - -[Illustration: SKETCH OF NATUFIAN ASSEMBLAGE - - MICROLITHS - ARCHITECTURE? - BURIAL - CHIPPED STONE - GROUND STONE - BONE] - -The animal bones of the Natufian layers show beasts of a “modern” type, -but with some differences from those of present-day Palestine. The -bones of the gazelle far outnumber those of the deer; since gazelles -like a much drier climate than deer, Palestine must then have had much -the same climate that it has today. Some of the animal bones were those -of large or dangerous beasts: the hyena, the bear, the wild boar, -and the leopard. But the Natufian people may have had the help of a -large domesticated dog. If our guess at a date for the Natufian is -right (about 7750 B.C.), this is an earlier dog than was that in the -Maglemosian of northern Europe. More recently, it has been reported -that a domesticated goat is also part of the Natufian finds. - -The study of the human bones from the Natufian burials is not yet -complete. Until Professor McCown’s study becomes available, we may note -Professor Coon’s assessment that these people were of a “basically -Mediterranean type.” - - -THE KARIM SHAHIR ASSEMBLAGE - -Karim Shahir differs from the Natufian sites in that it shows traces -of a temporary open site or encampment. It lies on the top of a bluff -in the Kurdish hill-country of northeastern Iraq. It was dug by Dr. -Bruce Howe of the expedition I directed in 1950-51 for the Oriental -Institute and the American Schools of Oriental Research. In 1954-55, -our expedition located another site, M’lefaat, with general resemblance -to Karim Shahir, but about a hundred miles north of it. In 1956, Dr. -Ralph Solecki located still another Karim Shahir type of site called -Zawi Chemi Shanidar. The Zawi Chemi site has a radiocarbon date of 8900 -± 300 B.C. - -Karim Shahir has evidence of only one very shallow level of occupation. -It was probably not lived on very long, although the people who lived -on it spread out over about three acres of area. In spots, the single -layer yielded great numbers of fist-sized cracked pieces of limestone, -which had been carried up from the bed of a stream at the bottom of the -bluff. We think these cracked stones had something to do with a kind of -architecture, but we were unable to find positive traces of hut plans. -At M’lefaat and Zawi Chemi, there were traces of rounded hut plans. - -As in the Natufian, the great bulk of small objects of the Karim Shahir -assemblage was in chipped flint. A large proportion of the flint tools -were microlithic bladelets and geometric forms. The flint sickle blade -was almost non-existent, being far scarcer than in the Natufian. The -people of Karim Shahir did a modest amount of work in the grinding of -stone; there were milling stone fragments of both the mortar and the -quern type, and stone hoes or axes with polished bits. Beads, pendants, -rings, and bracelets were made of finer quality stone. We found a few -simple points and needles of bone, and even two rather formless unbaked -clay figurines which seemed to be of animal form. - -[Illustration: SKETCH OF KARIM SHAHIR ASSEMBLAGE - - CHIPPED STONE - GROUND STONE - UNBAKED CLAY - SHELL - BONE - “ARCHITECTURE”] - -Karim Shahir did not yield direct evidence of the kind of vegetable -food its people ate. The animal bones showed a considerable -increase in the proportion of the bones of the species capable of -domestication--sheep, goat, cattle, horse, dog--as compared with animal -bones from the earlier cave sites of the area, which have a high -proportion of bones of wild forms like deer and gazelle. But we do not -know that any of the Karim Shahir animals were actually domesticated. -Some of them may have been, in an “incipient” way, but we have no means -at the moment that will tell us from the bones alone. - - -WERE THE NATUFIAN AND KARIM SHAHIR PEOPLES FOOD-PRODUCERS? - -It is clear that a great part of the food of the Natufian people -must have been hunted or collected. Shells of land, fresh-water, and -sea animals occur in their cave layers. The same is true as regards -Karim Shahir, save for sea shells. But on the other hand, we have -the sickles, the milling stones, the possible Natufian dog, and the -goat, and the general animal situation at Karim Shahir to hint at an -incipient approach to food-production. At Karim Shahir, there was the -tendency to settle down out in the open; this is echoed by the new -reports of open air Natufian sites. The large number of cracked stones -certainly indicates that it was worth the peoples’ while to have some -kind of structure, even if the site as a whole was short-lived. - -It is a part of my hunch that these things all point toward -food-production--that the hints we seek are there. But in the sense -that the peoples of the era of the primary village-farming community, -which we shall look at next, are fully food-producing, the Natufian -and Karim Shahir folk had not yet arrived. I think they were part of -a general build-up to full scale food-production. They were possibly -controlling a few animals of several kinds and perhaps one or two -plants, without realizing the full possibilities of this “control” as a -new way of life. - -This is why I think of the Karim Shahir and Natufian folk as being at -a level, or in an era, of incipient cultivation and domestication. But -we shall have to do a great deal more excavation in this range of time -before we’ll get the kind of positive information we need. - - -SUMMARY - -I am sorry that this chapter has had to be so much more about ideas -than about the archeological traces of prehistoric men themselves. -But the antiquities of the incipient era of cultivation and animal -domestication will not be spectacular, even when we do have them -excavated in quantity. Few museums will be interested in these -antiquities for exhibition purposes. The charred bits or impressions -of plants, the fragments of animal bone and shell, and the varied -clues to climate and environment will be as important as the artifacts -themselves. It will be the ideas to which these traces lead us that -will be important. I am sure that this unspectacular material--when we -have much more of it, and learn how to understand what it says--will -lead us to how and why answers about the first great change in human -history. - -We know the earliest village-farming communities appeared in western -Asia, in a nuclear area. We do not yet know why the Near Eastern -experiment came first, or why it didn’t happen earlier in some other -nuclear area. Apparently, the level of culture and the promise of the -natural environment were ready first in western Asia. The next sites -we look at will show a simple but effective food-production already -in existence. Without effective food-production and the settled -village-farming communities, civilization never could have followed. -How effective food-production came into being by the end of the -incipient era, is, I believe, one of the most fascinating questions any -archeologist could face. - -It now seems probable--from possibly two of the Palestinian sites with -varieties of the Natufian (Jericho and Nahal Oren)--that there were -one or more local Palestinian developments out of the Natufian into -later times. In the same way, what followed after the Karim Shahir type -of assemblage in northeastern Iraq was in some ways a reflection of -beginnings made at Karim Shahir and Zawi Chemi. - - - - -THE First Revolution - -[Illustration] - - -As the incipient era of cultivation and animal domestication passed -onward into the era of the primary village-farming community, the first -basic change in human economy was fully achieved. In southwestern Asia, -this seems to have taken place about nine thousand years ago. I am -going to restrict my description to this earliest Near Eastern case--I -do not know enough about the later comparable experiments in the Far -East and in the New World. Let us first, once again, think of the -contrast between food-collecting and food-producing as ways of life. - - -THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FOOD-COLLECTORS AND FOOD-PRODUCERS - -Childe used the word “revolution” because of the radical change that -took place in the habits and customs of man. Food-collectors--that is, -hunters, fishers, berry- and nut-gatherers--had to live in small groups -or bands, for they had to be ready to move wherever their food supply -moved. Not many people can be fed in this way in one area, and small -children and old folks are a burden. There is not enough food to store, -and it is not the kind that can be stored for long. - -Do you see how this all fits into a picture? Small groups of people -living now in this cave, now in that--or out in the open--as they moved -after the animals they hunted; no permanent villages, a few half-buried -huts at best; no breakable utensils; no pottery; no signs of anything -for clothing beyond the tools that were probably used to dress the -skins of animals; no time to think of much of anything but food and -protection and disposal of the dead when death did come: an existence -which takes nature as it finds it, which does little or nothing to -modify nature--all in all, a savage’s existence, and a very tough one. -A man who spends his whole life following animals just to kill them to -eat, or moving from one berry patch to another, is really living just -like an animal himself. - - -THE FOOD-PRODUCING ECONOMY - -Against this picture let me try to draw another--that of man’s life -after food-production had begun. His meat was stored “on the hoof,” -his grain in silos or great pottery jars. He lived in a house: it was -worth his while to build one, because he couldn’t move far from his -fields and flocks. In his neighborhood enough food could be grown -and enough animals bred so that many people were kept busy. They all -lived close to their flocks and fields, in a village. The village was -already of a fair size, and it was growing, too. Everybody had more to -eat; they were presumably all stronger, and there were more children. -Children and old men could shepherd the animals by day or help with -the lighter work in the fields. After the crops had been harvested the -younger men might go hunting and some of them would fish, but the food -they brought in was only an addition to the food in the village; the -villagers wouldn’t starve, even if the hunters and fishermen came home -empty-handed. - -There was more time to do different things, too. They began to modify -nature. They made pottery out of raw clay, and textiles out of hair -or fiber. People who became good at pottery-making traded their pots -for food and spent all of their time on pottery alone. Other people -were learning to weave cloth or to make new tools. There were already -people in the village who were becoming full-time craftsmen. - -Other things were changing, too. The villagers must have had -to agree on new rules for living together. The head man of the -village had problems different from those of the chief of the small -food-collectors’ band. If somebody’s flock of sheep spoiled a wheat -field, the owner wanted payment for the grain he lost. The chief of -the hunters was never bothered with such questions. Even the gods -had changed. The spirits and the magic that had been used by hunters -weren’t of any use to the villagers. They needed gods who would watch -over the fields and the flocks, and they eventually began to erect -buildings where their gods might dwell, and where the men who knew most -about the gods might live. - - -WAS FOOD-PRODUCTION A “REVOLUTION”? - -If you can see the difference between these two pictures--between -life in the food-collecting stage and life after food-production -had begun--you’ll see why Professor Childe speaks of a revolution. -By revolution, he doesn’t mean that it happened over night or that -it happened only once. We don’t know exactly how long it took. Some -people think that all these changes may have occurred in less than -500 years, but I doubt that. The incipient era was probably an affair -of some duration. Once the level of the village-farming community had -been established, however, things did begin to move very fast. By -six thousand years ago, the descendants of the first villagers had -developed irrigation and plow agriculture in the relatively rainless -Mesopotamian alluvium and were living in towns with temples. Relative -to the half million years of food-gathering which lay behind, this had -been achieved with truly revolutionary suddenness. - - -GAPS IN OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE NEAR EAST - -If you’ll look again at the chart (p. 111) you’ll see that I have -very few sites and assemblages to name in the incipient era of -cultivation and domestication, and not many in the earlier part of -the primary village-farming level either. Thanks in no small part -to the intelligent co-operation given foreign excavators by the -Iraq Directorate General of Antiquities, our understanding of the -sequence in Iraq is growing more complete. I shall use Iraq as my main -yard-stick here. But I am far from being able to show you a series of -Sears Roebuck catalogues, even century by century, for any part of -the nuclear area. There is still a great deal of earth to move, and a -great mass of material to recover and interpret before we even begin to -understand “how” and “why.” - -Perhaps here, because this kind of archeology is really my specialty, -you’ll excuse it if I become personal for a moment. I very much look -forward to having further part in closing some of the gaps in knowledge -of the Near East. This is not, as I’ve told you, the spectacular -range of Near Eastern archeology. There are no royal tombs, no gold, -no great buildings or sculpture, no writing, in fact nothing to -excite the normal museum at all. Nevertheless it is a range which, -idea-wise, gives the archeologist tremendous satisfaction. The country -of the hilly flanks is an exciting combination of green grasslands -and mountainous ridges. The Kurds, who inhabit the part of the area -in which I’ve worked most recently, are an extremely interesting and -hospitable people. Archeologists don’t become rich, but I’ll forego -the Cadillac for any bright spring morning in the Kurdish hills, on a -good site with a happy crew of workmen and an interested and efficient -staff. It is probably impossible to convey the full feeling which life -on such a dig holds--halcyon days for the body and acute pleasurable -stimulation for the mind. Old things coming newly out of the good dirt, -and the pieces of the human puzzle fitting into place! I think I am -an honest man; I cannot tell you that I am sorry the job is not yet -finished and that there are still gaps in this part of the Near Eastern -archeological sequence. - - -EARLIEST SITES OF THE VILLAGE FARMERS - -So far, the Karim Shahir type of assemblage, which we looked at in the -last chapter, is the earliest material available in what I take to -be the nuclear area. We do not believe that Karim Shahir was a village -site proper: it looks more like the traces of a temporary encampment. -Two caves, called Belt and Hotu, which are outside the nuclear area -and down on the foreshore of the Caspian Sea, have been excavated -by Professor Coon. These probably belong in the later extension of -the terminal era of food-gathering; in their upper layers are traits -like the use of pottery borrowed from the more developed era of the -same time in the nuclear area. The same general explanation doubtless -holds true for certain materials in Egypt, along the upper Nile and in -the Kharga oasis: these materials, called Sebilian III, the Khartoum -“neolithic,” and the Khargan microlithic, are from surface sites, -not from caves. The chart (p. 111) shows where I would place these -materials in era and time. - -[Illustration: THE HILLY FLANKS OF THE CRESCENT AND EARLY SITES OF THE -NEAR EAST] - -Both M’lefaat and Dr. Solecki’s Zawi Chemi Shanidar site appear to have -been slightly more “settled in” than was Karim Shahir itself. But I do -not think they belong to the era of farming-villages proper. The first -site of this era, in the hills of Iraqi Kurdistan, is Jarmo, on which -we have spent three seasons of work. Following Jarmo comes a variety of -sites and assemblages which lie along the hilly flanks of the crescent -and just below it. I am going to describe and illustrate some of these -for you. - -Since not very much archeological excavation has yet been done on sites -of this range of time, I shall have to mention the names of certain -single sites which now alone stand for an assemblage. This does not -mean that I think the individual sites I mention were unique. In the -times when their various cultures flourished, there must have been -many little villages which shared the same general assemblage. We are -only now beginning to locate them again. Thus, if I speak of Jarmo, -or Jericho, or Sialk as single examples of their particular kinds of -assemblages, I don’t mean that they were unique at all. I think I could -take you to the sites of at least three more Jarmos, within twenty -miles of the original one. They are there, but they simply haven’t yet -been excavated. In 1956, a Danish expedition discovered material of -Jarmo type at Shimshara, only two dozen miles northeast of Jarmo, and -below an assemblage of Hassunan type (which I shall describe presently). - - -THE GAP BETWEEN KARIM SHAHIR AND JARMO - -As we see the matter now, there is probably still a gap in the -available archeological record between the Karim Shahir-M’lefaat-Zawi -Chemi group (of the incipient era) and that of Jarmo (of the -village-farming era). Although some items of the Jarmo type materials -do reflect the beginnings of traditions set in the Karim Shahir group -(see p. 120), there is not a clear continuity. Moreover--to the -degree that we may trust a few radiocarbon dates--there would appear -to be around two thousand years of difference in time. The single -available Zawi Chemi “date” is 8900 ± 300 B.C.; the most reasonable -group of “dates” from Jarmo average to about 6750 ± 200 B.C. I am -uncertain about this two thousand years--I do not think it can have -been so long. - -This suggests that we still have much work to do in Iraq. You can -imagine how earnestly we await the return of political stability in the -Republic of Iraq. - - -JARMO, IN THE KURDISH HILLS, IRAQ - -The site of Jarmo has a depth of deposit of about twenty-seven feet, -and approximately a dozen layers of architectural renovation and -change. Nevertheless it is a “one period” site: its assemblage remains -essentially the same throughout, although one or two new items are -added in later levels. It covers about four acres of the top of a -bluff, below which runs a small stream. Jarmo lies in the hill country -east of the modern oil town of Kirkuk. The Iraq Directorate General of -Antiquities suggested that we look at it in 1948, and we have had three -seasons of digging on it since. - -The people of Jarmo grew the barley plant and two different kinds of -wheat. They made flint sickles with which to reap their grain, mortars -or querns on which to crack it, ovens in which it might be parched, and -stone bowls out of which they might eat their porridge. We are sure -that they had the domesticated goat, but Professor Reed (the staff -zoologist) is not convinced that the bones of the other potentially -domesticable animals of Jarmo--sheep, cattle, pig, horse, dog--show -sure signs of domestication. We had first thought that all of these -animals were domesticated ones, but Reed feels he must find out much -more before he can be sure. As well as their grain and the meat from -their animals, the people of Jarmo consumed great quantities of land -snails. Botanically, the Jarmo wheat stands about half way between -fully bred wheat and the wild forms. - - -ARCHITECTURE: HALL-MARK OF THE VILLAGE - -The sure sign of the village proper is in its traces of architectural -permanence. The houses of Jarmo were only the size of a small cottage -by our standards, but each was provided with several rectangular rooms. -The walls of the houses were made of puddled mud, often set on crude -foundations of stone. (The puddled mud wall, which the Arabs call -_touf_, is built by laying a three to six inch course of soft mud, -letting this sun-dry for a day or two, then adding the next course, -etc.) The village probably looked much like the simple Kurdish farming -village of today, with its mud-walled houses and low mud-on-brush -roofs. I doubt that the Jarmo village had more than twenty houses at -any one moment of its existence. Today, an average of about seven -people live in a comparable Kurdish house; probably the population of -Jarmo was about 150 people. - -[Illustration: SKETCH OF JARMO ASSEMBLAGE - - CHIPPED STONE - UNBAKED CLAY - GROUND STONE - POTTERY _UPPER THIRD OF SITE ONLY._ - REED MATTING - BONE - ARCHITECTURE] - -It is interesting that portable pottery does not appear until the -last third of the life of the Jarmo village. Throughout the duration -of the village, however, its people had experimented with the plastic -qualities of clay. They modeled little figurines of animals and of -human beings in clay; one type of human figurine they favored was that -of a markedly pregnant woman, probably the expression of some sort of -fertility spirit. They provided their house floors with baked-in-place -depressions, either as basins or hearths, and later with domed ovens of -clay. As we’ve noted, the houses themselves were of clay or mud; one -could almost say they were built up like a house-sized pot. Then, -finally, the idea of making portable pottery itself appeared, although -I very much doubt that the people of the Jarmo village discovered the -art. - -On the other hand, the old tradition of making flint blades and -microlithic tools was still very strong at Jarmo. The sickle-blade was -made in quantities, but so also were many of the much older tool types. -Strangely enough, it is within this age-old category of chipped stone -tools that we see one of the clearest pointers to a newer age. Many of -the Jarmo chipped stone tools--microliths--were made of obsidian, a -black volcanic natural glass. The obsidian beds nearest to Jarmo are -over three hundred miles to the north. Already a bulk carrying trade -had been established--the forerunner of commerce--and the routes were -set by which, in later times, the metal trade was to move. - -There are now twelve radioactive carbon “dates” from Jarmo. The most -reasonable cluster of determinations averages to about 6750 ± 200 -B.C., although there is a completely unreasonable range of “dates” -running from 3250 to 9250 B.C.! _If_ I am right in what I take to be -“reasonable,” the first flush of the food-producing revolution had been -achieved almost nine thousand years ago. - - -HASSUNA, IN UPPER MESOPOTAMIAN IRAQ - -We are not sure just how soon after Jarmo the next assemblage of Iraqi -material is to be placed. I do not think the time was long, and there -are a few hints that detailed habits in the making of pottery and -ground stone tools were actually continued from Jarmo times into the -time of the next full assemblage. This is called after a site named -Hassuna, a few miles to the south and west of modern Mosul. We also -have Hassunan type materials from several other sites in the same -general region. It is probably too soon to make generalizations about -it, but the Hassunan sites seem to cluster at slightly lower elevations -than those we have been talking about so far. - -The catalogue of the Hassuna assemblage is of course more full and -elaborate than that of Jarmo. The Iraqi government’s archeologists -who dug Hassuna itself, exposed evidence of increasing architectural -know-how. The walls of houses were still formed of puddled mud; -sun-dried bricks appear only in later periods. There were now several -different ways of making and decorating pottery vessels. One style of -pottery painting, called the Samarran style, is an extremely handsome -one and must have required a great deal of concentration and excellence -of draftsmanship. On the other hand, the old habits for the preparation -of good chipped stone tools--still apparent at Jarmo--seem to have -largely disappeared by Hassunan times. The flint work of the Hassunan -catalogue is, by and large, a wretched affair. We might guess that the -kinaesthetic concentration of the Hassuna craftsmen now went into other -categories; that is, they suddenly discovered they might have more fun -working with the newer materials. It’s a shame, for example, that none -of their weaving is preserved for us. - -The two available radiocarbon determinations from Hassunan contexts -stand at about 5100 and 5600 B.C. ± 250 years. - - -OTHER EARLY VILLAGE SITES IN THE NUCLEAR AREA - -I’ll now name and very briefly describe a few of the other early -village assemblages either in or adjacent to the hilly flanks of the -crescent. Unfortunately, we do not have radioactive carbon dates for -many of these materials. We may guess that some particular assemblage, -roughly comparable to that of Hassuna, for example, must reflect a -culture which lived at just about the same time as that of Hassuna. We -do this guessing on the basis of the general similarity and degree of -complexity of the Sears Roebuck catalogues of the particular assemblage -and that of Hassuna. We suppose that for sites near at hand and of a -comparable cultural level, as indicated by their generally similar -assemblages, the dating must be about the same. We may also know that -in a general stratigraphic sense, the sites in question may both appear -at the bottom of the ascending village sequence in their respective -areas. Without a number of consistent radioactive carbon dates, we -cannot be precise about priorities. - -[Illustration: SKETCH OF HASSUNA ASSEMBLAGE - - POTTERY - POTTERY OBJECTS - CHIPPED STONE - BONE - GROUND STONE - ARCHITECTURE - REED MATTING - BURIAL] - -The ancient mound at Jericho, in the Dead Sea valley in Palestine, -yields some very interesting material. Its catalogue somewhat resembles -that of Jarmo, especially in the sense that there is a fair depth -of deposit without portable pottery vessels. On the other hand, the -architecture of Jericho is surprisingly complex, with traces of massive -stone fortification walls and the general use of formed sun-dried -mud brick. Jericho lies in a somewhat strange and tropically lush -ecological niche, some seven hundred feet below sea level; it is -geographically within the hilly-flanks zone but environmentally not -part of it. - -Several radiocarbon “dates” for Jericho fall within the range of those -I find reasonable for Jarmo, and their internal statistical consistency -is far better than that for the Jarmo determinations. It is not yet -clear exactly what this means. - -The mound at Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) contains a remarkably -fine sequence, which perhaps does not have the gap we noted in -Iraqi-Kurdistan between the Karim Shahir group and Jarmo. While I am -not sure that the Jericho sequence will prove valid for those parts -of Palestine outside the special Dead Sea environmental niche, the -sequence does appear to proceed from the local variety of Natufian into -that of a very well settled community. So far, we have little direct -evidence for the food-production basis upon which the Jericho people -subsisted. - -There is an early village assemblage with strong characteristics of its -own in the land bordering the northeast corner of the Mediterranean -Sea, where Syria and the Cilician province of Turkey join. This early -Syro-Cilician assemblage must represent a general cultural pattern -which was at least in part contemporary with that of the Hassuna -assemblage. These materials from the bases of the mounds at Mersin, and -from Judaidah in the Amouq plain, as well as from a few other sites, -represent the remains of true villages. The walls of their houses were -built of puddled mud, but some of the house foundations were of stone. -Several different kinds of pottery were made by the people of these -villages. None of it resembles the pottery from Hassuna or from the -upper levels of Jarmo or Jericho. The Syro-Cilician people had not -lost their touch at working flint. An important southern variation of -the Syro-Cilician assemblage has been cleared recently at Byblos, a -port town famous in later Phoenician times. There are three radiocarbon -determinations which suggest that the time range for these developments -was in the sixth or early fifth millennium B.C. - -It would be fascinating to search for traces of even earlier -village-farming communities and for the remains of the incipient -cultivation era, in the Syro-Cilician region. - - -THE IRANIAN PLATEAU AND THE NILE VALLEY - -The map on page 125 shows some sites which lie either outside or in -an extension of the hilly-flanks zone proper. From the base of the -great mound at Sialk on the Iranian plateau came an assemblage of -early village material, generally similar, in the kinds of things it -contained, to the catalogues of Hassuna and Judaidah. The details of -how things were made are different; the Sialk assemblage represents -still another cultural pattern. I suspect it appeared a bit later -in time than did that of Hassuna. There is an important new item in -the Sialk catalogue. The Sialk people made small drills or pins of -hammered copper. Thus the metallurgist’s specialized craft had made its -appearance. - -There is at least one very early Iranian site on the inward slopes -of the hilly-flanks zone. It is the earlier of two mounds at a place -called Bakun, in southwestern Iran; the results of the excavations -there are not yet published and we only know of its coarse and -primitive pottery. I only mention Bakun because it helps us to plot the -extent of the hilly-flanks zone villages on the map. - -The Nile Valley lies beyond the peculiar environmental zone of the -hilly flanks of the crescent, and it is probable that the earliest -village-farming communities in Egypt were established by a few people -who wandered into the Nile delta area from the nuclear area. The -assemblage which is most closely comparable to the catalogue of Hassuna -or Judaidah, for example, is that from little settlements along the -shore of the Fayum lake. The Fayum materials come mainly from grain -bins or silos. Another site, Merimde, in the western part of the Nile -delta, shows the remains of a true village, but it may be slightly -later than the settlement of the Fayum. There are radioactive carbon -“dates” for the Fayum materials at about 4275 B.C. ± 320 years, which -is almost fifteen hundred years later than the determinations suggested -for the Hassunan or Syro-Cilician assemblages. I suspect that this -is a somewhat over-extended indication of the time it took for the -generalized cultural pattern of village-farming community life to -spread from the nuclear area down into Egypt, but as yet we have no way -of testing these matters. - -In this same vein, we have two radioactive carbon dates for an -assemblage from sites near Khartoum in the Sudan, best represented by -the mound called Shaheinab. The Shaheinab catalogue roughly corresponds -to that of the Fayum; the distance between the two places, as the Nile -flows, is roughly 1,500 miles. Thus it took almost a thousand years for -the new way of life to be carried as far south into Africa as Khartoum; -the two Shaheinab “dates” average about 3300 B.C. ± 400 years. - -If the movement was up the Nile (southward), as these dates suggest, -then I suspect that the earliest available village material of middle -Egypt, the so-called Tasian, is also later than that of the Fayum. The -Tasian materials come from a few graves near a village called Deir -Tasa, and I have an uncomfortable feeling that the Tasian “assemblage” -may be mainly an artificial selection of poor examples of objects which -belong in the following range of time. - - -SPREAD IN TIME AND SPACE - -There are now two things we can do; in fact, we have already begun to -do them. We can watch the spread of the new way of life upward through -time in the nuclear area. We can also see how the new way of life -spread outward in space from the nuclear area, as time went on. There -is good archeological evidence that both these processes took place. -For the hill country of northeastern Iraq, in the nuclear area, we -have already noticed how the succession (still with gaps) from Karim -Shahir, through M’lefaat and Jarmo, to Hassuna can be charted (see -chart, p. 111). In the next chapter, we shall continue this charting -and description of what happened in Iraq upward through time. We also -watched traces of the new way of life move through space up the Nile -into Africa, to reach Khartoum in the Sudan some thirty-five hundred -years later than we had seen it at Jarmo or Jericho. We caught glimpses -of it in the Fayum and perhaps at Tasa along the way. - -For the remainder of this chapter, I shall try to suggest briefly for -you the directions taken by the spread of the new way of life from the -nuclear area in the Near East. First, let me make clear again that -I _do not_ believe that the village-farming community way of life -was invented only once and in the Near East. It seems to me that the -evidence is very clear that a separate experiment arose in the New -World. For China, the question of independence or borrowing--in the -appearance of the village-farming community there--is still an open -one. In the last chapter, we noted the probability of an independent -nuclear area in southeastern Asia. Professor Carl Sauer strongly -champions the great importance of this area as _the_ original center -of agricultural pursuits, as a kind of “cradle” of all incipient eras -of the Old World at least. While there is certainly not the slightest -archeological evidence to allow us to go that far, we may easily expect -that an early southeast Asian development would have been felt in -China. However, the appearance of the village-farming community in the -northwest of India, at least, seems to have depended on the earlier -development in the Near East. It is also probable that ideas of the new -way of life moved well beyond Khartoum in Africa. - - -THE SPREAD OF THE VILLAGE-FARMING COMMUNITY WAY OF LIFE INTO EUROPE - -How about Europe? I won’t give you many details. You can easily imagine -that the late prehistoric prelude to European history is a complicated -affair. We all know very well how complicated an area Europe is now, -with its welter of different languages and cultures. Remember, however, -that a great deal of archeology has been done on the late prehistory of -Europe, and very little on that of further Asia and Africa. If we knew -as much about these areas as we do of Europe, I expect we’d find them -just as complicated. - -This much is clear for Europe, as far as the spread of the -village-community way of life is concerned. The general idea and much -of the know-how and the basic tools of food-production moved from the -Near East to Europe. So did the plants and animals which had been -domesticated; they were not naturally at home in Europe, as they were -in western Asia. I do not, of course, mean that there were traveling -salesmen who carried these ideas and things to Europe with a commercial -gleam in their eyes. The process took time, and the ideas and things -must have been passed on from one group of people to the next. There -was also some actual movement of peoples, but we don’t know the size of -the groups that moved. - -The story of the “colonization” of Europe by the first farmers is -thus one of (1) the movement from the eastern Mediterranean lands -of some people who were farmers; (2) the spread of ideas and things -beyond the Near East itself and beyond the paths along which the -“colonists” moved; and (3) the adaptations of the ideas and things -by the indigenous “Forest folk”, about whose “receptiveness” Professor -Mathiassen speaks (p. 97). It is important to note that the resulting -cultures in the new European environment were European, not Near -Eastern. The late Professor Childe remarked that “the peoples of the -West were not slavish imitators; they adapted the gifts from the East -... into a new and organic whole capable of developing on its own -original lines.” - - -THE WAYS TO EUROPE - -Suppose we want to follow the traces of those earliest village-farmers -who did travel from western Asia into Europe. Let us start from -Syro-Cilicia, that part of the hilly-flanks zone proper which lies in -the very northeastern corner of the Mediterranean. Three ways would be -open to us (of course we could not be worried about permission from the -Soviet authorities!). We would go north, or north and slightly east, -across Anatolian Turkey, and skirt along either shore of the Black Sea -or even to the east of the Caucasus Mountains along the Caspian Sea, -to reach the plains of Ukrainian Russia. From here, we could march -across eastern Europe to the Baltic and Scandinavia, or even hook back -southwestward to Atlantic Europe. - -Our second way from Syro-Cilicia would also lie over Anatolia, to the -northwest, where we would have to swim or raft ourselves over the -Dardanelles or the Bosphorus to the European shore. Then we would bear -left toward Greece, but some of us might turn right again in Macedonia, -going up the valley of the Vardar River to its divide and on down -the valley of the Morava beyond, to reach the Danube near Belgrade -in Jugoslavia. Here we would turn left, following the great river -valley of the Danube up into central Europe. We would have a number of -tributary valleys to explore, or we could cross the divide and go down -the valley of the Rhine to the North Sea. - -Our third way from Syro-Cilicia would be by sea. We would coast along -southern Anatolia and visit Cyprus, Crete, and the Aegean islands on -our way to Greece, where, in the north, we might meet some of those who -had taken the second route. From Greece, we would sail on to Italy and -the western isles, to reach southern France and the coasts of Spain. -Eventually a few of us would sail up the Atlantic coast of Europe, to -reach western Britain and even Ireland. - -[Illustration: PROBABLE ROUTES AND TIMING IN THE SPREAD OF THE -VILLAGE-FARMING COMMUNITY WAY OF LIFE FROM THE NEAR EAST TO EUROPE] - -Of course none of us could ever take these journeys as the first -farmers took them, since the whole course of each journey must have -lasted many lifetimes. The date given to the assemblage called Windmill -Hill, the earliest known trace of village-farming communities in -England, is about 2500 B.C. I would expect about 5500 B.C. to be a -safe date to give for the well-developed early village communities of -Syro-Cilicia. We suspect that the spread throughout Europe did not -proceed at an even rate. Professor Piggott writes that “at a date -probably about 2600 B.C., simple agricultural communities were being -established in Spain and southern France, and from the latter region a -spread northwards can be traced ... from points on the French seaboard -of the [English] Channel ... there were emigrations of a certain number -of these tribes by boat, across to the chalk lands of Wessex and Sussex -[in England], probably not more than three or four generations later -than the formation of the south French colonies.” - -New radiocarbon determinations are becoming available all the -time--already several suggest that the food-producing way of life -had reached the lower Rhine and Holland by 4000 B.C. But not all -prehistorians accept these “dates,” so I do not show them on my map -(p. 139). - - -THE EARLIEST FARMERS OF ENGLAND - -To describe the later prehistory of all Europe for you would take -another book and a much larger one than this is. Therefore, I have -decided to give you only a few impressions of the later prehistory of -Britain. Of course the British Isles lie at the other end of Europe -from our base-line in western Asia. Also, they received influences -along at least two of the three ways in which the new way of life -moved into Europe. We will look at more of their late prehistory in a -following chapter: here, I shall speak only of the first farmers. - -The assemblage called Windmill Hill, which appears in the south of -England, exhibits three different kinds of structures, evidence of -grain-growing and of stock-breeding, and some distinctive types of -pottery and stone implements. The most remarkable type of structure -is the earthwork enclosures which seem to have served as seasonal -cattle corrals. These enclosures were roughly circular, reached over -a thousand feet in diameter, and sometimes included two or three -concentric sets of banks and ditches. Traces of oblong timber houses -have been found, but not within the enclosures. The second type of -structure is mine-shafts, dug down into the chalk beds where good -flint for the making of axes or hoes could be found. The third type -of structure is long simple mounds or “unchambered barrows,” in one -end of which burials were made. It has been commonly believed that the -Windmill Hill assemblage belonged entirely to the cultural tradition -which moved up through France to the Channel. Professor Piggott is now -convinced, however, that important elements of Windmill Hill stem from -northern Germany and Denmark--products of the first way into Europe -from the east. - -The archeological traces of a second early culture are to be found -in the west of England, western and northern Scotland, and most of -Ireland. The bearers of this culture had come up the Atlantic coast -by sea from southern France and Spain. The evidence they have left us -consists mainly of tombs and the contents of tombs, with only very -rare settlement sites. The tombs were of some size and received the -bodies of many people. The tombs themselves were built of stone, heaped -over with earth; the stones enclosed a passage to a central chamber -(“passage graves”), or to a simple long gallery, along the sides of -which the bodies were laid (“gallery graves”). The general type of -construction is called “megalithic” (= great stone), and the whole -earth-mounded structure is often called a _barrow_. Since many have -proper chambers, in one sense or another, we used the term “unchambered -barrow” above to distinguish those of the Windmill Hill type from these -megalithic structures. There is some evidence for sacrifice, libations, -and ceremonial fires, and it is clear that some form of community -ritual was focused on the megalithic tombs. - -The cultures of the people who produced the Windmill Hill assemblage -and of those who made the megalithic tombs flourished, at least in -part, at the same time. Although the distributions of the two different -types of archeological traces are in quite different parts of the -country, there is Windmill Hill pottery in some of the megalithic -tombs. But the tombs also contain pottery which seems to have arrived -with the tomb builders themselves. - -The third early British group of antiquities of this general time -(following 2500 B.C.) comes from sites in southern and eastern England. -It is not so certain that the people who made this assemblage, called -Peterborough, were actually farmers. While they may on occasion have -practiced a simple agriculture, many items of their assemblage link -them closely with that of the “Forest folk” of earlier times in -England and in the Baltic countries. Their pottery is decorated with -impressions of cords and is quite different from that of Windmill Hill -and the megalithic builders. In addition, the distribution of their -finds extends into eastern Britain, where the other cultures have left -no trace. The Peterborough people had villages with semi-subterranean -huts, and the bones of oxen, pigs, and sheep have been found in a few -of these. On the whole, however, hunting and fishing seem to have been -their vital occupations. They also established trade routes especially -to acquire the raw material for stone axes. - -A probably slightly later culture, whose traces are best known from -Skara Brae on Orkney, also had its roots in those cultures of the -Baltic area which fused out of the meeting of the “Forest folk” and -the peoples who took the eastern way into Europe. Skara Brae is very -well preserved, having been built of thin stone slabs about which -dune-sand drifted after the village died. The individual houses, the -bedsteads, the shelves, the chests for clothes and oddments--all built -of thin stone-slabs--may still be seen in place. But the Skara Brae -people lived entirely by sheep- and cattle-breeding, and by catching -shellfish. Neither grain nor the instruments of agriculture appeared at -Skara Brae. - - -THE EUROPEAN ACHIEVEMENT - -The above is only a very brief description of what went on in Britain -with the arrival of the first farmers. There are many interesting -details which I have omitted in order to shorten the story. - -I believe some of the difficulty we have in understanding the -establishment of the first farming communities in Europe is with -the word “colonization.” We have a natural tendency to think of -“colonization” as it has happened within the last few centuries. In the -case of the colonization of the Americas, for example, the colonists -came relatively quickly, and in increasingly vast numbers. They had -vastly superior technical, political, and war-making skills, compared -with those of the Indians. There was not much mixing with the Indians. -The case in Europe five or six thousand years ago must have been very -different. I wonder if it is even proper to call people “colonists” -who move some miles to a new region, settle down and farm it for some -years, then move on again, generation after generation? The ideas and -the things which these new people carried were only _potentially_ -superior. The ideas and things and the people had to prove themselves -in their adaptation to each new environment. Once this was done another -link to the chain would be added, and then the forest-dwellers and -other indigenous folk of Europe along the way might accept the new -ideas and things. It is quite reasonable to expect that there must have -been much mixture of the migrants and the indigenes along the way; the -Peterborough and Skara Brae assemblages we mentioned above would seem -to be clear traces of such fused cultures. Sometimes, especially if the -migrants were moving by boat, long distances may have been covered in -a short time. Remember, however, we seem to have about three thousand -years between the early Syro-Cilician villages and Windmill Hill. - -Let me repeat Professor Childe again. “The peoples of the West were -not slavish imitators: they adapted the gifts from the East ... into -a new and organic whole capable of developing on its own original -lines.” Childe is of course completely conscious of the fact that his -“peoples of the West” were in part the descendants of migrants who came -originally from the “East,” bringing their “gifts” with them. This -was the late prehistoric achievement of Europe--to take new ideas and -things and some migrant peoples and, by mixing them with the old in its -own environments, to forge a new and unique series of cultures. - -What we know of the ways of men suggests to us that when the details -of the later prehistory of further Asia and Africa are learned, their -stories will be just as exciting. - - - - -THE Conquest of Civilization - -[Illustration] - - -Now we must return to the Near East again. We are coming to the point -where history is about to begin. I am going to stick pretty close -to Iraq and Egypt in this chapter. These countries will perhaps be -the most interesting to most of us, for the foundations of western -civilization were laid in the river lands of the Tigris and Euphrates -and of the Nile. I shall probably stick closest of all to Iraq, because -things first happened there and also because I know it best. - -There is another interesting thing, too. We have seen that the first -experiment in village-farming took place in the Near East. So did -the first experiment in civilization. Both experiments “took.” The -traditions we live by today are based, ultimately, on those ancient -beginnings in food-production and civilization in the Near East. - - -WHAT “CIVILIZATION” MEANS - -I shall not try to define “civilization” for you; rather, I shall -tell you what the word brings to my mind. To me civilization means -urbanization: the fact that there are cities. It means a formal -political set-up--that there are kings or governing bodies that the -people have set up. It means formal laws--rules of conduct--which the -government (if not the people) believes are necessary. It probably -means that there are formalized projects--roads, harbors, irrigation -canals, and the like--and also some sort of army or police force -to protect them. It means quite new and different art forms. It -also usually means there is writing. (The people of the Andes--the -Incas--had everything which goes to make up a civilization but formal -writing. I can see no reason to say they were not civilized.) Finally, -as the late Professor Redfield reminded us, civilization seems to bring -with it the dawn of a new kind of moral order. - -In different civilizations, there may be important differences in the -way such things as the above are managed. In early civilizations, it is -usual to find religion very closely tied in with government, law, and -so forth. The king may also be a high priest, or he may even be thought -of as a god. The laws are usually thought to have been given to the -people by the gods. The temples are protected just as carefully as the -other projects. - - -CIVILIZATION IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT FOOD-PRODUCTION - -Civilizations have to be made up of many people. Some of the people -live in the country; some live in very large towns or cities. Classes -of society have begun. There are officials and government people; there -are priests or religious officials; there are merchants and traders; -there are craftsmen, metal-workers, potters, builders, and so on; there -are also farmers, and these are the people who produce the food for the -whole population. It must be obvious that civilization cannot exist -without food-production and that food-production must also be at a -pretty efficient level of village-farming before civilization can even -begin. - -But people can be food-producing without being civilized. In many -parts of the world this is still the case. When the white men first -came to America, the Indians in most parts of this hemisphere were -food-producers. They grew corn, potatoes, tomatoes, squash, and many -other things the white men had never eaten before. But only the Aztecs -of Mexico, the Mayas of Yucatan and Guatemala, and the Incas of the -Andes were civilized. - - -WHY DIDN’T CIVILIZATION COME TO ALL FOOD-PRODUCERS? - -Once you have food-production, even at the well-advanced level of -the village-farming community, what else has to happen before you -get civilization? Many men have asked this question and have failed -to give a full and satisfactory answer. There is probably no _one_ -answer. I shall give you my own idea about how civilization _may_ have -come about in the Near East alone. Remember, it is only a guess--a -putting together of hunches from incomplete evidence. It is _not_ meant -to explain how civilization began in any of the other areas--China, -southeast Asia, the Americas--where other early experiments in -civilization went on. The details in those areas are quite different. -Whether certain general principles hold, for the appearance of any -early civilization, is still an open and very interesting question. - - -WHERE CIVILIZATION FIRST APPEARED IN THE NEAR EAST - -You remember that our earliest village-farming communities lay along -the hilly flanks of a great “crescent.” (See map on p. 125.) -Professor Breasted’s “fertile crescent” emphasized the rich river -valleys of the Nile and the Tigris-Euphrates Rivers. Our hilly-flanks -area of the crescent zone arches up from Egypt through Palestine and -Syria, along southern Turkey into northern Iraq, and down along the -southwestern fringe of Iran. The earliest food-producing villages we -know already existed in this area by about 6750 B.C. (± 200 years). - -Now notice that this hilly-flanks zone does not include southern -Mesopotamia, the alluvial land of the lower Tigris and Euphrates in -Iraq, or the Nile Valley proper. The earliest known villages of classic -Mesopotamia and Egypt seem to appear fifteen hundred or more years -after those of the hilly-flanks zone. For example, the early Fayum -village which lies near a lake west of the Nile Valley proper (see p. -135) has a radiocarbon date of 4275 B.C. ± 320 years. It was in the -river lands, however, that the immediate beginnings of civilization -were made. - -We know that by about 3200 B.C. the Early Dynastic period had begun -in southern Mesopotamia. The beginnings of writing go back several -hundred years earlier, but we can safely say that civilization had -begun in Mesopotamia by 3200 B.C. In Egypt, the beginning of the First -Dynasty is slightly later, at about 3100 B.C., and writing probably -did not appear much earlier. There is no question but that history and -civilization were well under way in both Mesopotamia and Egypt by 3000 -B.C.--about five thousand years ago. - - -THE HILLY-FLANKS ZONE VERSUS THE RIVER LANDS - -Why did these two civilizations spring up in these two river -lands which apparently were not even part of the area where the -village-farming community began? Why didn’t we have the first -civilizations in Palestine, Syria, north Iraq, or Iran, where we’re -sure food-production had had a long time to develop? I think the -probable answer gives a clue to the ways in which civilization began in -Egypt and Mesopotamia. - -The land in the hilly flanks is of a sort which people can farm without -too much trouble. There is a fairly fertile coastal strip in Palestine -and Syria. There are pleasant mountain slopes, streams running out to -the sea, and rain, at least in the winter months. The rain belt and the -foothills of the Turkish mountains also extend to northern Iraq and on -to the Iranian plateau. The Iranian plateau has its mountain valleys, -streams, and some rain. These hilly flanks of the “crescent,” through -most of its arc, are almost made-to-order for beginning farmers. The -grassy slopes of the higher hills would be pasture for their herds -and flocks. As soon as the earliest experiments with agriculture and -domestic animals had been successful, a pleasant living could be -made--and without too much trouble. - -I should add here again, that our evidence points increasingly to a -climate for those times which is very little different from that for -the area today. Now look at Egypt and southern Mesopotamia. Both are -lands without rain, for all intents and purposes. Both are lands with -rivers that have laid down very fertile soil--soil perhaps superior to -that in the hilly flanks. But in both lands, the rivers are of no great -aid without some control. - -The Nile floods its banks once a year, in late September or early -October. It not only soaks the narrow fertile strip of land on either -side; it lays down a fresh layer of new soil each year. Beyond the -fertile strip on either side rise great cliffs, and behind them is the -desert. In its natural, uncontrolled state, the yearly flood of the -Nile must have caused short-lived swamps that were full of crocodiles. -After a short time, the flood level would have dropped, the water and -the crocodiles would have run back into the river, and the swamp plants -would have become parched and dry. - -The Tigris and the Euphrates of Mesopotamia are less likely to flood -regularly than the Nile. The Tigris has a shorter and straighter course -than the Euphrates; it is also the more violent river. Its banks are -high, and when the snows melt and flow into all of its tributary rivers -it is swift and dangerous. The Euphrates has a much longer and more -curving course and few important tributaries. Its banks are lower and -it is less likely to flood dangerously. The land on either side and -between the two rivers is very fertile, south of the modern city of -Baghdad. Unlike the Nile Valley, neither the Tigris nor the Euphrates -is flanked by cliffs. The land on either side of the rivers stretches -out for miles and is not much rougher than a poor tennis court. - - -THE RIVERS MUST BE CONTROLLED - -The real trick in both Egypt and Mesopotamia is to make the rivers work -for you. In Egypt, this is a matter of building dikes and reservoirs -that will catch and hold the Nile flood. In this way, the water is held -and allowed to run off over the fields as it is needed. In Mesopotamia, -it is a matter of taking advantage of natural river channels and branch -channels, and of leading ditches from these onto the fields. - -Obviously, we can no longer find the first dikes or reservoirs of -the Nile Valley, or the first canals or ditches of Mesopotamia. The -same land has been lived on far too long for any traces of the first -attempts to be left; or, especially in Egypt, it has been covered by -the yearly deposits of silt, dropped by the river floods. But we’re -pretty sure the first food-producers of Egypt and southern Mesopotamia -must have made such dikes, canals, and ditches. In the first place, -there can’t have been enough rain for them to grow things otherwise. -In the second place, the patterns for such projects seem to have been -pretty well set by historic times. - - -CONTROL OF THE RIVERS THE BUSINESS OF EVERYONE - -Here, then, is a _part_ of the reason why civilization grew in Egypt -and Mesopotamia first--not in Palestine, Syria, or Iran. In the latter -areas, people could manage to produce their food as individuals. It -wasn’t too hard; there were rain and some streams, and good pasturage -for the animals even if a crop or two went wrong. In Egypt and -Mesopotamia, people had to put in a much greater amount of work, and -this work couldn’t be individual work. Whole villages or groups of -people had to turn out to fix dikes or dig ditches. The dikes had to be -repaired and the ditches carefully cleared of silt each year, or they -would become useless. - -There also had to be hard and fast rules. The person who lived nearest -the ditch or the reservoir must not be allowed to take all the water -and leave none for his neighbors. It was not only a business of -learning to control the rivers and of making their waters do the -farmer’s work. It also meant controlling men. But once these men had -managed both kinds of controls, what a wonderful yield they had! The -soil was already fertile, and the silt which came in the floods and -ditches kept adding fertile soil. - - -THE GERM OF CIVILIZATION IN EGYPT AND MESOPOTAMIA - -This learning to work together for the common good was the real germ of -the Egyptian and the Mesopotamian civilizations. The bare elements of -civilization were already there: the need for a governing hand and for -laws to see that the communities’ work was done and that the water was -justly shared. You may object that there is a sort of chicken and egg -paradox in this idea. How could the people set up the rules until they -had managed to get a way to live, and how could they manage to get a -way to live until they had set up the rules? I think that small groups -must have moved down along the mud-flats of the river banks quite -early, making use of naturally favorable spots, and that the rules grew -out of such cases. It would have been like the hand-in-hand growth of -automobiles and paved highways in the United States. - -Once the rules and the know-how did get going, there must have been a -constant interplay of the two. Thus, the more the crops yielded, the -richer and better-fed the people would have been, and the more the -population would have grown. As the population grew, more land would -have needed to be flooded or irrigated, and more complex systems of -dikes, reservoirs, canals, and ditches would have been built. The more -complex the system, the more necessity for work on new projects and for -the control of their use.... And so on.... - -What I have just put down for you is a guess at the manner of growth of -some of the formalized systems that go to make up a civilized society. -My explanation has been pointed particularly at Egypt and Mesopotamia. -I have already told you that the irrigation and water-control part of -it does not apply to the development of the Aztecs or the Mayas, or -perhaps anybody else. But I think that a fair part of the story of -Egypt and Mesopotamia must be as I’ve just told you. - -I am particularly anxious that you do _not_ understand me to mean that -irrigation _caused_ civilization. I am sure it was not that simple at -all. For, in fact, a complex and highly engineered irrigation system -proper did not come until later times. Let’s say rather that the simple -beginnings of irrigation allowed and in fact encouraged a great number -of things in the technological, political, social, and moral realms of -culture. We do not yet understand what all these things were or how -they worked. But without these other aspects of culture, I do not -think that urbanization and civilization itself could have come into -being. - - -THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SEQUENCE TO CIVILIZATION IN IRAQ - -We last spoke of the archeological materials of Iraq on page 130, -where I described the village-farming community of Hassunan type. The -Hassunan type villages appear in the hilly-flanks zone and in the -rolling land adjacent to the Tigris in northern Iraq. It is probable -that even before the Hassuna pattern of culture lived its course, a -new assemblage had been established in northern Iraq and Syria. This -assemblage is called Halaf, after a site high on a tributary of the -Euphrates, on the Syro-Turkish border. - -[Illustration: SKETCH OF SELECTED ITEMS OF HALAFIAN ASSEMBLAGE - - BEADS AND PENDANTS - POTTERY MOTIFS - POTTERY] - -The Halafian assemblage is incompletely known. The culture it -represents included a remarkably handsome painted pottery. -Archeologists have tended to be so fascinated with this pottery that -they have bothered little with the rest of the Halafian assemblage. We -do know that strange stone-founded houses, with plans like those of the -popular notion of an Eskimo igloo, were built. Like the pottery of the -Samarran style, which appears as part of the Hassunan assemblage (see -p. 131), the Halafian painted pottery implies great concentration and -excellence of draftsmanship on the part of the people who painted it. - -We must mention two very interesting sites adjacent to the mud-flats of -the rivers, half way down from northern Iraq to the classic alluvial -Mesopotamian area. One is Baghouz on the Euphrates; the other is -Samarra on the Tigris (see map, p. 125). Both these sites yield the -handsome painted pottery of the style called Samarran: in fact it -is Samarra which gives its name to the pottery. Neither Baghouz nor -Samarra have completely Hassunan types of assemblages, and at Samarra -there are a few pots of proper Halafian style. I suppose that Samarra -and Baghouz give us glimpses of those early farmers who had begun to -finger their way down the mud-flats of the river banks toward the -fertile but yet untilled southland. - - -CLASSIC SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA FIRST OCCUPIED - -Our next step is into the southland proper. Here, deep in the core of -the mound which later became the holy Sumerian city of Eridu, Iraqi -archeologists uncovered a handsome painted pottery. Pottery of the same -type had been noticed earlier by German archeologists on the surface -of a small mound, awash in the spring floods, near the remains of the -Biblical city of Erich (Sumerian = Uruk; Arabic = Warka). This “Eridu” -pottery, which is about all we have of the assemblage of the people who -once produced it, may be seen as a blend of the Samarran and Halafian -painted pottery styles. This may over-simplify the case, but as yet we -do not have much evidence to go on. The idea does at least fit with my -interpretation of the meaning of Baghouz and Samarra as way-points on -the mud-flats of the rivers half way down from the north. - -My colleague, Robert Adams, believes that there were certainly -riverine-adapted food-collectors living in lower Mesopotamia. The -presence of such would explain why the Eridu assemblage is not simply -the sum of the Halafian and Samarran assemblages. But the domesticated -plants and animals and the basic ways of food-production must have -come from the hilly-flanks country in the north. - -Above the basal Eridu levels, and at a number of other sites in the -south, comes a full-fledged assemblage called Ubaid. Incidentally, -there is an aspect of the Ubaidian assemblage in the north as well. It -seems to move into place before the Halaf manifestation is finished, -and to blend with it. The Ubaidian assemblage in the south is by far -the more spectacular. The development of the temple has been traced -at Eridu from a simple little structure to a monumental building some -62 feet long, with a pilaster-decorated façade and an altar in its -central chamber. There is painted Ubaidian pottery, but the style is -hurried and somewhat careless and gives the _impression_ of having been -a cheap mass-production means of decoration when compared with the -carefully drafted styles of Samarra and Halaf. The Ubaidian people made -other items of baked clay: sickles and axes of very hard-baked clay -are found. The northern Ubaidian sites have yielded tools of copper, -but metal tools of unquestionable Ubaidian find-spots are not yet -available from the south. Clay figurines of human beings with monstrous -turtle-like faces are another item in the southern Ubaidian assemblage. - -[Illustration: SKETCH OF SELECTED ITEMS OF UBAIDIAN ASSEMBLAGE] - -There is a large Ubaid cemetery at Eridu, much of it still awaiting -excavation. The few skeletons so far tentatively studied reveal a -completely modern type of “Mediterraneanoid”; the individuals whom the -skeletons represent would undoubtedly blend perfectly into the modern -population of southern Iraq. What the Ubaidian assemblage says to us is -that these people had already adapted themselves and their culture to -the peculiar riverine environment of classic southern Mesopotamia. For -example, hard-baked clay axes will chop bundles of reeds very well, or -help a mason dress his unbaked mud bricks, and there were only a few -soft and pithy species of trees available. The Ubaidian levels of Eridu -yield quantities of date pits; that excellent and characteristically -Iraqi fruit was already in use. The excavators also found the clay -model of a ship, with the stepping-point for a mast, so that Sinbad the -Sailor must have had his antecedents as early as the time of Ubaid. -The bones of fish, which must have flourished in the larger canals as -well as in the rivers, are common in the Ubaidian levels and thereafter. - - -THE UBAIDIAN ACHIEVEMENT - -On present evidence, my tendency is to see the Ubaidian assemblage -in southern Iraq as the trace of a new era. I wish there were more -evidence, but what we have suggests this to me. The culture of southern -Ubaid soon became a culture of towns--of centrally located towns with -some rural villages about them. The town had a temple and there must -have been priests. These priests probably had political and economic -functions as well as religious ones, if the somewhat later history of -Mesopotamia may suggest a pattern for us. Presently the temple and its -priesthood were possibly the focus of the market; the temple received -its due, and may already have had its own lands and herds and flocks. -The people of the town, undoubtedly at least in consultation with the -temple administration, planned and maintained the simple irrigation -ditches. As the system flourished, the community of rural farmers would -have produced more than sufficient food. The tendency for specialized -crafts to develop--tentative at best at the cultural level of the -earlier village-farming community era--would now have been achieved, -and probably many other specialists in temple administration, water -control, architecture, and trade would also have appeared, as the -surplus food-supply was assured. - -Southern Mesopotamia is not a land rich in natural resources other -than its fertile soil. Stone, good wood for construction, metal, and -innumerable other things would have had to be imported. Grain and -dates--although both are bulky and difficult to transport--and wool and -woven stuffs must have been the mediums of exchange. Over what area did -the trading net-work of Ubaid extend? We start with the idea that the -Ubaidian assemblage is most richly developed in the south. We assume, I -think, correctly, that it represents a cultural flowering of the south. -On the basis of the pottery of the still elusive “Eridu” immigrants -who had first followed the rivers into alluvial Mesopotamia, we get -the notion that the characteristic painted pottery style of Ubaid -was developed in the southland. If this reconstruction is correct -then we may watch with interest where the Ubaid pottery-painting -tradition spread. We have already mentioned that there is a substantial -assemblage of (and from the southern point of view, _fairly_ pure) -Ubaidian material in northern Iraq. The pottery appears all along the -Iranian flanks, even well east of the head of the Persian Gulf, and -ends in a later and spectacular flourish in an extremely handsome -painted style called the “Susa” style. Ubaidian pottery has been noted -up the valleys of both of the great rivers, well north of the Iraqi -and Syrian borders on the southern flanks of the Anatolian plateau. -It reaches the Mediterranean Sea and the valley of the Orontes in -Syria, and it may be faintly reflected in the painted style of a -site called Ghassul, on the east bank of the Jordan in the Dead Sea -Valley. Over this vast area--certainly in all of the great basin of -the Tigris-Euphrates drainage system and its natural extensions--I -believe we may lay our fingers on the traces of a peculiar way of -decorating pottery, which we call Ubaidian. This cursive and even -slap-dash decoration, it appears to me, was part of a new cultural -tradition which arose from the adjustments which immigrant northern -farmers first made to the new and challenging environment of southern -Mesopotamia. But exciting as the idea of the spread of influences of -the Ubaid tradition in space may be, I believe you will agree that the -consequences of the growth of that tradition in southern Mesopotamia -itself, as time passed, are even more important. - - -THE WARKA PHASE IN THE SOUTH - -So far, there are only two radiocarbon determinations for the Ubaidian -assemblage, one from Tepe Gawra in the north and one from Warka in the -south. My hunch would be to use the dates 4500 to 3750 B.C., with a -plus or more probably a minus factor of about two hundred years for -each, as the time duration of the Ubaidian assemblage in southern -Mesopotamia. - -Next, much to our annoyance, we have what is almost a temporary -black-out. According to the system of terminology I favor, our next -“assemblage” after that of Ubaid is called the _Warka_ phase, from -the Arabic name for the site of Uruk or Erich. We know it only from -six or seven levels in a narrow test-pit at Warka, and from an even -smaller hole at another site. This “assemblage,” so far, is known only -by its pottery, some of which still bears Ubaidian style painting. The -characteristic Warkan pottery is unpainted, with smoothed red or gray -surfaces and peculiar shapes. Unquestionably, there must be a great -deal more to say about the Warkan assemblage, but someone will first -have to excavate it! - - -THE DAWN OF CIVILIZATION - -After our exasperation with the almost unknown Warka interlude, -following the brilliant “false dawn” of Ubaid, we move next to an -assemblage which yields traces of a preponderance of those elements -which we noted (p. 144) as meaning civilization. This assemblage -is that called _Proto-Literate_; it already contains writing. On -the somewhat shaky principle that writing, however early, means -history--and no longer prehistory--the assemblage is named for the -historical implications of its content, and no longer after the name of -the site where it was first found. Since some of the older books used -site-names for this assemblage, I will tell you that the Proto-Literate -includes the latter half of what used to be called the “Uruk period” -_plus_ all of what used to be called the “Jemdet Nasr period.” It shows -a consistent development from beginning to end. - -I shall, in fact, leave much of the description and the historic -implications of the Proto-Literate assemblage to the conventional -historians. Professor T. J. Jacobsen, reaching backward from the -legends he finds in the cuneiform writings of slightly later times, can -in fact tell you a more complete story of Proto-Literate culture than -I can. It should be enough here if I sum up briefly what the excavated -archeological evidence shows. - -We have yet to dig a Proto-Literate site in its entirety, but the -indications are that the sites cover areas the size of small cities. -In architecture, we know of large and monumental temple structures, -which were built on elaborate high terraces. The plans and decoration -of these temples follow the pattern set in the Ubaid phase: the chief -difference is one of size. The German excavators at the site of Warka -reckoned that the construction of only one of the Proto-Literate temple -complexes there must have taken 1,500 men, each working a ten-hour day, -five years to build. - - -ART AND WRITING - -If the architecture, even in its monumental forms, can be seen to -stem from Ubaidian developments, this is not so with our other -evidence of Proto-Literate artistic expression. In relief and applied -sculpture, in sculpture in the round, and on the engraved cylinder -seals--all of which now make their appearance--several completely -new artistic principles are apparent. These include the composition -of subject-matter in groups, commemorative scenes, and especially -the ability and apparent desire to render the human form and face. -Excellent as the animals of the Franco-Cantabrian art may have been -(see p. 85), and however handsome were the carefully drafted -geometric designs and conventionalized figures on the pottery of the -early farmers, there seems to have been, up to this time, a mental -block about the drawing of the human figure and especially the human -face. We do not yet know what caused this self-consciousness about -picturing themselves which seems characteristic of men before the -appearance of civilization. We do know that with civilization, the -mental block seems to have been removed. - -Clay tablets bearing pictographic signs are the Proto-Literate -forerunners of cuneiform writing. The earliest examples are not well -understood but they seem to be “devices for making accounts and -for remembering accounts.” Different from the later case in Egypt, -where writing appears fully formed in the earliest examples, the -development from simple pictographic signs to proper cuneiform writing -may be traced, step by step, in Mesopotamia. It is most probable -that the development of writing was connected with the temple and -the need for keeping account of the temple’s possessions. Professor -Jacobsen sees writing as a means for overcoming space, time, and the -increasing complications of human affairs: “Literacy, which began -with ... civilization, enhanced mightily those very tendencies in its -development which characterize it as a civilization and mark it off as -such from other types of culture.” - -[Illustration: RELIEF ON A PROTO-LITERATE STONE VASE, WARKA - -Unrolled drawing, with restoration suggested by figures from -contemporary cylinder seals] - -While the new principles in art and the idea of writing are not -foreshadowed in the Ubaid phase, or in what little we know of the -Warkan, I do not think we need to look outside southern Mesopotamia -for their beginnings. We do know something of the adjacent areas, -too, and these beginnings are not there. I think we must accept them -as completely new discoveries, made by the people who were developing -the whole new culture pattern of classic southern Mesopotamia. Full -description of the art, architecture, and writing of the Proto-Literate -phase would call for many details. Men like Professor Jacobsen and Dr. -Adams can give you these details much better than I can. Nor shall I do -more than tell you that the common pottery of the Proto-Literate phase -was so well standardized that it looks factory made. There was also -some handsome painted pottery, and there were stone bowls with inlaid -decoration. Well-made tools in metal had by now become fairly common, -and the metallurgist was experimenting with the casting process. Signs -for plows have been identified in the early pictographs, and a wheeled -chariot is shown on a cylinder seal engraving. But if I were forced to -a guess in the matter, I would say that the development of plows and -draft-animals probably began in the Ubaid period and was another of the -great innovations of that time. - -The Proto-Literate assemblage clearly suggests a highly developed and -sophisticated culture. While perhaps not yet fully urban, it is on -the threshold of urbanization. There seems to have been a very dense -settlement of Proto-Literate sites in classic southern Mesopotamia, -many of them newly founded on virgin soil where no earlier settlements -had been. When we think for a moment of what all this implies, of the -growth of an irrigation system which must have existed to allow the -flourish of this culture, and of the social and political organization -necessary to maintain the irrigation system, I think we will agree that -at last we are dealing with civilization proper. - - -FROM PREHISTORY TO HISTORY - -Now it is time for the conventional ancient historians to take over -the story from me. Remember this when you read what they write. Their -real base-line is with cultures ruled over by later kings and emperors, -whose writings describe military campaigns and the administration of -laws and fully organized trading ventures. To these historians, the -Proto-Literate phase is still a simple beginning for what is to follow. -If they mention the Ubaid assemblage at all--the one I was so lyrical -about--it will be as some dim and fumbling step on the path to the -civilized way of life. - -I suppose you could say that the difference in the approach is that as -a prehistorian I have been looking forward or upward in time, while the -historians look backward to glimpse what I’ve been describing here. My -base-line was half a million years ago with a being who had little more -than the capacity to make tools and fire to distinguish him from the -animals about him. Thus my point of view and that of the conventional -historian are bound to be different. You will need both if you want to -understand all of the story of men, as they lived through time to the -present. - - - - -End of PREHISTORY - -[Illustration] - - -You’ll doubtless easily recall your general course in ancient history: -how the Sumerian dynasties of Mesopotamia were supplanted by those of -Babylonia, how the Hittite kingdom appeared in Anatolian Turkey, and -about the three great phases of Egyptian history. The literate kingdom -of Crete arose, and by 1500 B.C. there were splendid fortified Mycenean -towns on the mainland of Greece. This was the time--about the whole -eastern end of the Mediterranean--of what Professor Breasted called the -“first great internationalism,” with flourishing trade, international -treaties, and royal marriages between Egyptians, Babylonians, and -Hittites. By 1200 B.C., the whole thing had fragmented: “the peoples of -the sea were restless in their isles,” and the great ancient centers in -Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia were eclipsed. Numerous smaller states -arose--Assyria, Phoenicia, Israel--and the Trojan war was fought. -Finally Assyria became the paramount power of all the Near East, -presently to be replaced by Persia. - -A new culture, partaking of older west Asiatic and Egyptian elements, -but casting them with its own tradition into a new mould, arose in -mainland Greece. - -I once shocked my Classical colleagues to the core by referring to -Greece as “a second degree derived civilization,” but there is much -truth in this. The principles of bronze- and then of iron-working, of -the alphabet, and of many other elements in Greek culture were borrowed -from western Asia. Our debt to the Greeks is too well known for me even -to mention it, beyond recalling to you that it is to Greece we owe the -beginnings of rational or empirical science and thought in general. But -Greece fell in its turn to Rome, and in 55 B.C. Caesar invaded Britain. - -I last spoke of Britain on page 142; I had chosen it as my single -example for telling you something of how the earliest farming -communities were established in Europe. Now I will continue with -Britain’s later prehistory, so you may sense something of the end of -prehistory itself. Remember that Britain is simply a single example -we select; the same thing could be done for all the other countries -of Europe, and will be possible also, some day, for further Asia and -Africa. Remember, too, that prehistory in most of Europe runs on for -three thousand or more years _after_ conventional ancient history -begins in the Near East. Britain is a good example to use in showing -how prehistory ended in Europe. As we said earlier, it lies at the -opposite end of Europe from the area of highest cultural achievement in -those times, and should you care to read more of the story in detail, -you may do so in the English language. - - -METAL USERS REACH ENGLAND - -We left the story of Britain with the peoples who made three different -assemblages--the Windmill Hill, the megalith-builders, and the -Peterborough--making adjustments to their environments, to the original -inhabitants of the island, and to each other. They had first arrived -about 2500 B.C., and were simple pastoralists and hoe cultivators who -lived in little village communities. Some of them planted little if any -grain. By 2000 B.C., they were well settled in. Then, somewhere in the -range from about 1900 to 1800 B.C., the traces of the invasion of a new -series of peoples began to appear. - -The first newcomers are called the Beaker folk, after the name of a -peculiar form of pottery they made. The beaker type of pottery seems -oldest in Spain, where it occurs with great collective tombs of -megalithic construction and with copper tools. But the Beaker folk who -reached England seem already to have moved first from Spain(?) to the -Rhineland and Holland. While in the Rhineland, and before leaving for -England, the Beaker folk seem to have mixed with the local population -and also with incomers from northeastern Europe whose culture included -elements brought originally from the Near East by the eastern way -through the steppes. This last group has also been named for a peculiar -article in its assemblage; the group is called the Battle-axe folk. A -few Battle-axe folk elements, including, in fact, stone battle-axes, -reached England with the earliest Beaker folk,[6] coming from the -Rhineland. - - [6] The British authors use the term “Beaker folk” to mean both - archeological assemblage and human physical type. They speak - of a “... tall, heavy-boned, rugged, and round-headed” strain - which they take to have developed, apparently in the Rhineland, - by a mixture of the original (Spanish?) beaker-makers and - the northeast European battle-axe makers. However, since the - science of physical anthropology is very much in flux at the - moment, and since I am not able to assess the evidence for these - physical types, I _do not_ use the term “folk” in this book with - its usual meaning of standardized physical type. When I use - “folk” here, I mean simply _the makers of a given archeological - assemblage_. The difficulty only comes when assemblages are - named for some item in them; it is too clumsy to make an - adjective of the item and refer to a “beakerian” assemblage. - -The Beaker folk settled earliest in the agriculturally fertile south -and east. There seem to have been several phases of Beaker folk -invasions, and it is not clear whether these all came strictly from the -Rhineland or Holland. We do know that their copper daggers and awls -and armlets are more of Irish or Atlantic European than of Rhineland -origin. A few simple habitation sites and many burials of the Beaker -folk are known. They buried their dead singly, sometimes in conspicuous -individual barrows with the dead warrior in his full trappings. The -spectacular element in the assemblage of the Beaker folk is a group -of large circular monuments with ditches and with uprights of wood or -stone. These “henges” became truly monumental several hundred years -later; while they were occasionally dedicated with a burial, they were -not primarily tombs. The effect of the invasion of the Beaker folk -seems to cut across the whole fabric of life in Britain. - -[Illustration: BEAKER] - -There was, however, a second major element in British life at this -time. It shows itself in the less well understood traces of a group -again called after one of the items in their catalogue, the Food-vessel -folk. There are many burials in these “food-vessel” pots in northern -England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the pottery itself seems to -link back to that of the Peterborough assemblage. Like the earlier -Peterborough people in the highland zone before them, the makers of -the food-vessels seem to have been heavily involved in trade. It is -quite proper to wonder whether the food-vessel pottery itself was made -by local women who were married to traders who were middlemen in the -transmission of Irish metal objects to north Germany and Scandinavia. -The belt of high, relatively woodless country, from southwest to -northeast, was already established as a natural route for inland trade. - - -MORE INVASIONS - -About 1500 B.C., the situation became further complicated by the -arrival of new people in the region of southern England anciently -called Wessex. The traces suggest the Brittany coast of France as a -source, and the people seem at first to have been a small but “heroic” -group of aristocrats. Their “heroes” are buried with wealth and -ceremony, surrounded by their axes and daggers of bronze, their gold -ornaments, and amber and jet beads. These rich finds show that the -trade-linkage these warriors patronized spread from the Baltic sources -of amber to Mycenean Greece or even Egypt, as evidenced by glazed blue -beads. - -The great visual trace of Wessex achievement is the final form of -the spectacular sanctuary at Stonehenge. A wooden henge or circular -monument was first made several hundred years earlier, but the site -now received its great circles of stone uprights and lintels. The -diameter of the surrounding ditch at Stonehenge is about 350 feet, the -diameter of the inner circle of large stones is about 100 feet, and -the tallest stone of the innermost horseshoe-shaped enclosure is 29 -feet 8 inches high. One circle is made of blue stones which must have -been transported from Pembrokeshire, 145 miles away as the crow flies. -Recently, many carvings representing the profile of a standard type of -bronze axe of the time, and several profiles of bronze daggers--one of -which has been called Mycenean in type--have been found carved in the -stones. We cannot, of course, describe the details of the religious -ceremonies which must have been staged in Stonehenge, but we can -certainly imagine the well-integrated and smoothly working culture -which must have been necessary before such a great monument could have -been built. - - -“THIS ENGLAND” - -The range from 1900 to about 1400 B.C. includes the time of development -of the archeological features usually called the “Early Bronze Age” -in Britain. In fact, traces of the Wessex warriors persisted down to -about 1200 B.C. The main regions of the island were populated, and the -adjustments to the highland and lowland zones were distinct and well -marked. The different aspects of the assemblages of the Beaker folk and -the clearly expressed activities of the Food-vessel folk and the Wessex -warriors show that Britain was already taking on her characteristic -trading role, separated from the European continent but conveniently -adjacent to it. The tin of Cornwall--so important in the production -of good bronze--as well as the copper of the west and of Ireland, -taken with the gold of Ireland and the general excellence of Irish -metal work, assured Britain a trader’s place in the then known world. -Contacts with the eastern Mediterranean may have been by sea, with -Cornish tin as the attraction, or may have been made by the Food-vessel -middlemen on their trips to the Baltic coast. There they would have -encountered traders who traveled the great north-south European road, -by which Baltic amber moved southward to Greece and the Levant, and -ideas and things moved northward again. - -There was, however, the Channel between England and Europe, and this -relative isolation gave some peace and also gave time for a leveling -and further fusion of culture. The separate cultural traditions began -to have more in common. The growing of barley, the herding of sheep and -cattle, and the production of woolen garments were already features -common to all Britain’s inhabitants save a few in the remote highlands, -the far north, and the distant islands not yet fully touched by -food-production. The “personality of Britain” was being formed. - - -CREMATION BURIALS BEGIN - -Along with people of certain religious faiths, archeologists are -against cremation (for other people!). Individuals to be cremated seem -in past times to have been dressed in their trappings and put upon a -large pyre: it takes a lot of wood and a very hot fire for a thorough -cremation. When the burning had been completed, the few fragile scraps -of bone and such odd beads of stone or other rare items as had resisted -the great heat seem to have been whisked into a pot and the pot buried. -The archeologist is left with the pot and the unsatisfactory scraps in -it. - -Tentatively, after about 1400 B.C. and almost completely over the whole -island by 1200 B.C., Britain became the scene of cremation burials -in urns. We know very little of the people themselves. None of their -settlements have been identified, although there is evidence that they -grew barley and made enclosures for cattle. The urns used for the -burials seem to have antecedents in the pottery of the Food-vessel -folk, and there are some other links with earlier British traditions. -In Lancashire, a wooden circle seems to have been built about a grave -with cremated burials in urns. Even occasional instances of cremation -may be noticed earlier in Britain, and it is not clear what, if any, -connection the British cremation burials in urns have with the classic -_Urnfields_ which were now beginning in the east Mediterranean and -which we shall mention below. - -The British cremation-burial-in-urns folk survived a long time in the -highland zone. In the general British scheme, they make up what is -called the “Middle Bronze Age,” but in the highland zone they last -until after 900 B.C. and are considered to be a specialized highland -“Late Bronze Age.” In the highland zone, these later cremation-burial -folk seem to have continued the older Food-vessel tradition of being -middlemen in the metal market. - -Granting that our knowledge of this phase of British prehistory is -very restricted because the cremations have left so little for the -archeologist, it does not appear that the cremation-burial-urn folk can -be sharply set off from their immediate predecessors. But change on a -grander scale was on the way. - - -REVERBERATIONS FROM CENTRAL EUROPE - -In the centuries immediately following 1000 B.C., we see with fair -clarity two phases of a cultural process which must have been going -on for some time. Certainly several of the invasions we have already -described in this chapter were due to earlier phases of the same -cultural process, but we could not see the details. - -[Illustration: SLASHING SWORD] - -Around 1200 B.C. central Europe was upset by the spread of the -so-called Urnfield folk, who practiced cremation burial in urns and -whom we also know to have been possessors of long, slashing swords and -the horse. I told you above that we have no idea that the Urnfield -folk proper were in any way connected with the people who made -cremation-burial-urn cemeteries a century or so earlier in Britain. It -has been supposed that the Urnfield folk themselves may have shared -ideas with the people who sacked Troy. We know that the Urnfield -pressure from central Europe displaced other people in northern France, -and perhaps in northwestern Germany, and that this reverberated into -Britain about 1000 B.C. - -Soon after 750 B.C., the same thing happened again. This time, the -pressure from central Europe came from the Hallstatt folk who were iron -tool makers: the reverberation brought people from the western Alpine -region across the Channel into Britain. - -At first it is possible to see the separate results of these folk -movements, but the developing cultures soon fused with each other and -with earlier British elements. Presently there were also strains of -other northern and western European pottery and traces of Urnfield -practices themselves which appeared in the finished British product. I -hope you will sense that I am vastly over-simplifying the details. - -The result seems to have been--among other things--a new kind of -agricultural system. The land was marked off by ditched divisions. -Rectangular fields imply the plow rather than hoe cultivation. We seem -to get a picture of estate or tribal boundaries which included village -communities; we find a variety of tools in bronze, and even whetstones -which show that iron has been honed on them (although the scarce iron -has not been found). Let me give you the picture in Professor S. -Piggott’s words: “The ... Late Bronze Age of southern England was but -the forerunner of the earliest Iron Age in the same region, not only in -the techniques of agriculture, but almost certainly in terms of ethnic -kinship ... we can with some assurance talk of the Celts ... the great -early Celtic expansion of the Continent is recognized to be that of the -Urnfield people.” - -Thus, certainly by 500 B.C., there were people in Britain, some of -whose descendants we may recognize today in name or language in remote -parts of Wales, Scotland, and the Hebrides. - - -THE COMING OF IRON - -Iron--once the know-how of reducing it from its ore in a very hot, -closed fire has been achieved--produces a far cheaper and much more -efficient set of tools than does bronze. Iron tools seem first to -have been made in quantity in Hittite Anatolia about 1500 B.C. In -continental Europe, the earliest, so-called Hallstatt, iron-using -cultures appeared in Germany soon after 750 B.C. Somewhat later, -Greek and especially Etruscan exports of _objets d’art_--which moved -with a flourishing trans-Alpine wine trade--influenced the Hallstatt -iron-working tradition. Still later new classical motifs, together with -older Hallstatt, oriental, and northern nomad motifs, gave rise to a -new style in metal decoration which characterizes the so-called La Tène -phase. - -A few iron users reached Britain a little before 400 B.C. Not long -after that, a number of allied groups appeared in southern and -southeastern England. They came over the Channel from France and must -have been Celts with dialects related to those already in England. A -second wave of Celts arrived from the Marne district in France about -250 B.C. Finally, in the second quarter of the first century B.C., -there were several groups of newcomers, some of whom were Belgae of -a mixed Teutonic-Celtic confederacy of tribes in northern France and -Belgium. The Belgae preceded the Romans by only a few years. - - -HILL-FORTS AND FARMS - -The earliest iron-users seem to have entrenched themselves temporarily -within hill-top forts, mainly in the south. Gradually, they moved -inland, establishing _individual_ farm sites with extensive systems -of rectangular fields. We recognize these fields by the “lynchets” or -lines of soil-creep which plowing left on the slopes of hills. New -crops appeared; there were now bread wheat, oats, and rye, as well as -barley. - -At Little Woodbury, near the town of Salisbury, a farmstead has been -rather completely excavated. The rustic buildings were within a -palisade, the round house itself was built of wood, and there were -various outbuildings and pits for the storage of grain. Weaving was -done on the farm, but not blacksmithing, which must have been a -specialized trade. Save for the lack of firearms, the place might -almost be taken for a farmstead on the American frontier in the early -1800’s. - -Toward 250 B.C. there seems to have been a hasty attempt to repair the -hill-forts and to build new ones, evidently in response to signs of -restlessness being shown by remote relatives in France. - - -THE SECOND PHASE - -Perhaps the hill-forts were not entirely effective or perhaps a -compromise was reached. In any case, the newcomers from the Marne -district did establish themselves, first in the southeast and then to -the north and west. They brought iron with decoration of the La Tène -type and also the two-wheeled chariot. Like the Wessex warriors of -over a thousand years earlier, they made “heroes’” graves, with their -warriors buried in the war-chariots and dressed in full trappings. - -[Illustration: CELTIC BUCKLE] - -The metal work of these Marnian newcomers is excellent. The peculiar -Celtic art style, based originally on the classic tendril motif, -is colorful and virile, and fits with Greek and Roman descriptions -of Celtic love of color in dress. There is a strong trace of these -newcomers northward in Yorkshire, linked by Ptolemy’s description to -the Parisii, doubtless part of the Celtic tribe which originally gave -its name to Paris on the Seine. Near Glastonbury, in Somerset, two -villages in swamps have been excavated. They seem to date toward the -middle of the first century B.C., which was a troubled time in Britain. -The circular houses were built on timber platforms surrounded with -palisades. The preservation of antiquities by the water-logged peat of -the swamp has yielded us a long catalogue of the materials of these -villagers. - -In Scotland, which yields its first iron tools at a date of about 100 -B.C., and in northern Ireland even slightly earlier, the effects of the -two phases of newcomers tend especially to blend. Hill-forts, “brochs” -(stone-built round towers) and a variety of other strange structures -seem to appear as the new ideas develop in the comparative isolation of -northern Britain. - - -THE THIRD PHASE - -For the time of about the middle of the first century B.C., we again -see traces of frantic hill-fort construction. This simple military -architecture now took some new forms. Its multiple ramparts must -reflect the use of slings as missiles, rather than spears. We probably -know the reason. In 56 B.C., Julius Caesar chastised the Veneti of -Brittany for outraging the dignity of Roman ambassadors. The Veneti -were famous slingers, and doubtless the reverberations of escaping -Veneti were felt across the Channel. The military architecture suggests -that some Veneti did escape to Britain. - -Also, through Caesar, we learn the names of newcomers who arrived in -two waves, about 75 B.C. and about 50 B.C. These were the Belgae. Now, -at last, we can even begin to speak of dynasties and individuals. -Some time before 55 B.C., the Catuvellauni, originally from the Marne -district in France, had possessed themselves of a large part of -southeastern England. They evidently sailed up the Thames and built a -town of over a hundred acres in area. Here ruled Cassivellaunus, “the -first man in England whose name we know,” and whose town Caesar sacked. -The town sprang up elsewhere again, however. - - -THE END OF PREHISTORY - -Prehistory, strictly speaking, is now over in southern Britain. -Claudius’ effective invasion took place in 43 A.D.; by 83 A.D., a raid -had been made as far north as Aberdeen in Scotland. But by 127 A.D., -Hadrian had completed his wall from the Solway to the Tyne, and the -Romans settled behind it. In Scotland, Romanization can have affected -the countryside very little. Professor Piggott adds that “... it is -when the pressure of Romanization is relaxed by the break-up of the -Dark Ages that we see again the Celtic metal-smiths handling their -material with the same consummate skill as they had before the Roman -Conquest, and with traditional styles that had not even then forgotten -their Marnian and Belgic heritage.” - -In fact, many centuries go by, in Britain as well as in the rest of -Europe, before the archeologist’s task is complete and the historian on -his own is able to describe the ways of men in the past. - - -BRITAIN AS A SAMPLE OF THE GENERAL COURSE OF PREHISTORY IN EUROPE - -In giving this very brief outline of the later prehistory of Britain, -you will have noticed how often I had to refer to the European -continent itself. Britain, beyond the English Channel for all of her -later prehistory, had a much simpler course of events than did most of -the rest of Europe in later prehistoric times. This holds, in spite -of all the “invasions” and “reverberations” from the continent. Most -of Europe was the scene of an even more complicated ebb and flow of -cultural change, save in some of its more remote mountain valleys and -peninsulas. - -The whole course of later prehistory in Europe is, in fact, so very -complicated that there is no single good book to cover it all; -certainly there is none in English. There are some good regional -accounts and some good general accounts of part of the range from about -3000 B.C. to A.D. 1. I suspect that the difficulty of making a good -book that covers all of its later prehistory is another aspect of what -makes Europe so very complicated a continent today. The prehistoric -foundations for Europe’s very complicated set of civilizations, -cultures, and sub-cultures--which begin to appear as history -proceeds--were in themselves very complicated. - -Hence, I selected the case of Britain as a single example of how -prehistory ends in Europe. It could have been more complicated than we -found it to be. Even in the subject matter on Britain in the chapter -before the last, we did not see direct traces of the effect on Britain -of the very important developments which took place in the Danubian -way from the Near East. Apparently Britain was not affected. Britain -received the impulses which brought copper, bronze, and iron tools from -an original east Mediterranean homeland into Europe, almost at the ends -of their journeys. But by the same token, they had had time en route to -take on their characteristic European aspects. - -Some time ago, Sir Cyril Fox wrote a famous book called _The -Personality of Britain_, sub-titled “Its Influence on Inhabitant and -Invader in Prehistoric and Early Historic Times.” We have not gone -into the post-Roman early historic period here; there are still the -Anglo-Saxons and Normans to account for as well as the effects of -the Romans. But what I have tried to do was to begin the story of -how the personality of Britain was formed. The principles that Fox -used, in trying to balance cultural and environmental factors and -interrelationships would not be greatly different for other lands. - - - - -Summary - -[Illustration] - - -In the pages you have read so far, you have been brought through the -earliest 99 per cent of the story of man’s life on this planet. I have -left only 1 per cent of the story for the historians to tell. - - -THE DRAMA OF THE PAST - -Men first became men when evolution had carried them to a certain -point. This was the point where the eye-hand-brain co-ordination was -good enough so that tools could be made. When tools began to be made -according to sets of lasting habits, we know that men had appeared. -This happened over a half million years ago. The stage for the play -may have been as broad as all of Europe, Africa, and Asia. At least, -it seems unlikely that it was only one little region that saw the -beginning of the drama. - -Glaciers and different climates came and went, to change the settings. -But the play went on in the same first act for a very long time. The -men who were the players had simple roles. They had to feed themselves -and protect themselves as best they could. They did this by hunting, -catching, and finding food wherever they could, and by taking such -protection as caves, fire, and their simple tools would give them. -Before the first act was over, the last of the glaciers was melting -away, and the players had added the New World to their stage. If -we want a special name for the first act, we could call it _The -Food-Gatherers_. - -There were not many climaxes in the first act, so far as we can see. -But I think there may have been a few. Certainly the pace of the -first act accelerated with the swing from simple gathering to more -intensified collecting. The great cave art of France and Spain was -probably an expression of a climax. Even the ideas of burying the dead -and of the “Venus” figurines must also point to levels of human thought -and activity that were over and above pure food-getting. - - -THE SECOND ACT - -The second act began only about ten thousand years ago. A few of the -players started it by themselves near the center of the Old World part -of the stage, in the Near East. It began as a plant and animal act, but -it soon became much more complicated. - -But the players in this one part of the stage--in the Near East--were -not the only ones to start off on the second act by themselves. Other -players, possibly in several places in the Far East, and certainly in -the New World, also started second acts that began as plant and animal -acts, and then became complicated. We can call the whole second act -_The Food-Producers_. - - -THE FIRST GREAT CLIMAX OF THE SECOND ACT - -In the Near East, the first marked climax of the second act happened -in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The play and the players reached that great -climax that we call civilization. This seems to have come less than -five thousand years after the second act began. But it could never have -happened in the first act at all. - -There is another curious thing about the first act. Many of the players -didn’t know it was over and they kept on with their roles long after -the second act had begun. On the edges of the stage there are today -some players who are still going on with the first act. The Eskimos, -and the native Australians, and certain tribes in the Amazon jungle are -some of these players. They seem perfectly happy to keep on with the -first act. - -The second act moved from climax to climax. The civilizations of -Mesopotamia and Egypt were only the earliest of these climaxes. The -players to the west caught the spirit of the thing, and climaxes -followed there. So also did climaxes come in the Far Eastern and New -World portions of the stage. - -The greater part of the second act should really be described to you -by a historian. Although it was a very short act when compared to the -first one, the climaxes complicate it a great deal. I, a prehistorian, -have told you about only the first act, and the very beginning of the -second. - - -THE THIRD ACT - -Also, as a prehistorian I probably should not even mention the third -act--it began so recently. The third act is _The Industrialization_. -It is the one in which we ourselves are players. If the pace of the -second act was so much faster than that of the first, the pace of the -third act is terrific. The danger is that it may wear down the players -completely. - -What sort of climaxes will the third act have, and are we already in -one? You have seen by now that the acts of my play are given in terms -of modes or basic patterns of human economy--ways in which people -get food and protection and safety. The climaxes involve more than -human economy. Economics and technological factors may be part of the -climaxes, but they are not all. The climaxes may be revolutions in -their own way, intellectual and social revolutions if you like. - -If the third act follows the pattern of the second act, a climax should -come soon after the act begins. We may be due for one soon if we are -not already in it. Remember the terrific pace of this third act. - - -WHY BOTHER WITH PREHISTORY? - -Why do we bother about prehistory? The main reason is that we think it -may point to useful ideas for the present. We are in the troublesome -beginnings of the third act of the play. The beginnings of the second -act may have lessons for us and give depth to our thinking. I know -there are at least _some_ lessons, even in the present incomplete -state of our knowledge. The players who began the second act--that of -food-production--separately, in different parts of the world, were not -all of one “pure race” nor did they have “pure” cultural traditions. -Some apparently quite mixed Mediterraneans got off to the first start -on the second act and brought it to its first two climaxes as well. -Peoples of quite different physical type achieved the first climaxes in -China and in the New World. - -In our British example of how the late prehistory of Europe worked, we -listed a continuous series of “invasions” and “reverberations.” After -each of these came fusion. Even though the Channel protected Britain -from some of the extreme complications of the mixture and fusion of -continental Europe, you can see how silly it would be to refer to a -“pure” British race or a “pure” British culture. We speak of the United -States as a “melting pot.” But this is nothing new. Actually, Britain -and all the rest of the world have been “melting pots” at one time or -another. - -By the time the written records of Mesopotamia and Egypt begin to turn -up in number, the climaxes there are well under way. To understand the -beginnings of the climaxes, and the real beginnings of the second act -itself, we are thrown back on prehistoric archeology. And this is as -true for China, India, Middle America, and the Andes, as it is for the -Near East. - -There are lessons to be learned from all of man’s past, not simply -lessons of how to fight battles or win peace conferences, but of how -human society evolves from one stage to another. Many of these lessons -can only be looked for in the prehistoric past. So far, we have only -made a beginning. There is much still to do, and many gaps in the story -are yet to be filled. The prehistorian’s job is to find the evidence, -to fill the gaps, and to discover the lessons men have learned in the -past. As I see it, this is not only an exciting but a very practical -goal for which to strive. - - - - -List of Books - - -BOOKS OF GENERAL INTEREST - -(Chosen from a variety of the increasingly useful list of cheap -paperbound books.) - - Childe, V. Gordon - _What Happened in History._ 1954. Penguin. - _Man Makes Himself._ 1955. Mentor. - _The Prehistory of European Society._ 1958. Penguin. - - Dunn, L. C., and Dobzhansky, Th. - _Heredity, Race, and Society._ 1952. Mentor. - - Frankfort, Henri, Frankfort, H. A., Jacobsen, Thorkild, and Wilson, - John A. - _Before Philosophy._ 1954. Penguin. - - Simpson, George G. - _The Meaning of Evolution._ 1955. Mentor. - - Wheeler, Sir Mortimer - _Archaeology from the Earth._ 1956. Penguin. - - -GEOCHRONOLOGY AND THE ICE AGE - -(Two general books. Some Pleistocene geologists disagree with Zeuner’s -interpretation of the dating evidence, but their points of view appear -in professional journals, in articles too cumbersome to list here.) - - Flint, R. F. - _Glacial Geology and the Pleistocene Epoch._ 1947. John Wiley - and Sons. - - Zeuner, F. E. - _Dating the Past._ 1952 (3rd ed.). Methuen and Co. - - -FOSSIL MEN AND RACE - -(The points of view of physical anthropologists and human -paleontologists are changing very quickly. Two of the different points -of view are listed here.) - - Clark, W. E. Le Gros - _History of the Primates._ 1956 (5th ed.). British Museum - (Natural History). (Also in Phoenix edition, 1957.) - - Howells, W. W. - _Mankind So Far._ 1944. Doubleday, Doran. - - -GENERAL ANTHROPOLOGY - -(These are standard texts not absolutely up to date in every detail, or -interpretative essays concerned with cultural change through time as -well as in space.) - - Kroeber, A. L. - _Anthropology._ 1948. Harcourt, Brace. - - Linton, Ralph - _The Tree of Culture._ 1955. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. - - Redfield, Robert - _The Primitive World and Its Transformations._ 1953. Cornell - University Press. - - Steward, Julian H. - _Theory of Culture Change._ 1955. University of Illinois Press. - - White, Leslie - _The Science of Culture._ 1949. Farrar, Strauss. - - -GENERAL PREHISTORY - -(A sampling of the more useful and current standard works in English.) - - Childe, V. Gordon - _The Dawn of European Civilization._ 1957. Kegan Paul, Trench, - Trubner. - _Prehistoric Migrations in Europe._ 1950. Instituttet for - Sammenlignende Kulturforskning. - - Clark, Grahame - _Archaeology and Society._ 1957. Harvard University Press. - - Clark, J. G. D. - _Prehistoric Europe: The Economic Basis._ 1952. Methuen and Co. - - Garrod, D. A. E. - _Environment, Tools, and Man._ 1946. Cambridge University - Press. - - Movius, Hallam L., Jr. - “Old World Prehistory: Paleolithic” in _Anthropology Today_. - Kroeber, A. L., ed. 1953. University of Chicago Press. - - Oakley, Kenneth P. - _Man the Tool-Maker._ 1956. British Museum (Natural History). - (Also in Phoenix edition, 1957.) - - Piggott, Stuart - _British Prehistory._ 1949. Oxford University Press. - - Pittioni, Richard - _Die Urgeschichtlichen Grundlagen der Europäischen Kultur._ - 1949. Deuticke. (A single book which does attempt to cover the - whole range of European prehistory to ca. 1 A.D.) - - -THE NEAR EAST - - Adams, Robert M. - “Developmental Stages in Ancient Mesopotamia,” _in_ Steward, - Julian, _et al_, _Irrigation Civilizations: A Comparative - Study_. 1955. Pan American Union. - - Braidwood, Robert J. - _The Near East and the Foundations for Civilization._ 1952. - University of Oregon. - - Childe, V. Gordon - _New Light on the Most Ancient East._ 1952. Oriental Dept., - Routledge and Kegan Paul. - - Frankfort, Henri - _The Birth of Civilization in the Near East._ 1951. University - of Indiana Press. (Also in Anchor edition, 1956.) - - Pallis, Svend A. - _The Antiquity of Iraq._ 1956. Munksgaard. - - Wilson, John A. - _The Burden of Egypt._ 1951. University of Chicago Press. (Also - in Phoenix edition, called _The Culture of Ancient Egypt_, - 1956.) - - -HOW DIGGING IS DONE - - Braidwood, Linda - _Digging beyond the Tigris._ 1953. Schuman, New York. - - Wheeler, Sir Mortimer - _Archaeology from the Earth._ 1954. Oxford, London. - - - - -Index - - - Abbevillian, 48; - core-biface tool, 44, 48 - - Acheulean, 48, 60 - - Acheuleo-Levalloisian, 63 - - Acheuleo-Mousterian, 63 - - Adams, R. M., 106 - - Adzes, 45 - - Africa, east, 67, 89; - north, 70, 89; - south, 22, 25, 34, 40, 67 - - Agriculture, incipient, in England, 140; - in Near East, 123 - - Ain Hanech, 48 - - Amber, taken from Baltic to Greece, 167 - - American Indians, 90, 142 - - Anatolia, used as route to Europe, 138 - - Animals, in caves, 54, 64; - in cave art, 85 - - Antevs, Ernst, 19 - - Anyathian, 47 - - Archeological interpretation, 8 - - Archeology, defined, 8 - - Architecture, at Jarmo, 128; - at Jericho, 133 - - Arrow, points, 94; - shaft straightener, 83 - - Art, in caves, 84; - East Spanish, 85; - figurines, 84; - Franco-Cantabrian, 84, 85; - movable (engravings, modeling, scratchings), 83; - painting, 83; - sculpture, 83 - - Asia, western, 67 - - Assemblage, defined, 13, 14; - European, 94; - Jarmo, 129; - Maglemosian, 94; - Natufian, 113 - - Aterian, industry, 67; - point, 89 - - Australopithecinae, 24 - - Australopithecine, 25, 26 - - Awls, 77 - - Axes, 62, 94 - - Ax-heads, 15 - - Azilian, 97 - - Aztecs, 145 - - - Baghouz, 152 - - Bakun, 134 - - Baltic sea, 93 - - Banana, 107 - - Barley, wild, 108 - - Barrow, 141 - - Battle-axe folk, 164; - assemblage, 164 - - Beads, 80; - bone, 114 - - Beaker folk, 164; - assemblage, 164-165 - - Bear, in cave art, 85; - cult, 68 - - Belgium, 94 - - Belt cave, 126 - - Bering Strait, used as route to New World, 98 - - Bison, in cave art, 85 - - Blade, awl, 77; - backed, 75; - blade-core, 71; - end-scraper, 77; - stone, defined, 71; - strangulated (notched), 76; - tanged point, 76; - tools, 71, 75-80, 90; - tool tradition, 70 - - Boar, wild, in cave art, 85 - - Bogs, source of archeological materials, 94 - - Bolas, 54 - - Bordes, François, 62 - - Borer, 77 - - Boskop skull, 34 - - Boyd, William C., 35 - - Bracelets, 118 - - Brain, development of, 24 - - Breadfruit, 107 - - Breasted, James H., 107 - - Brick, at Jericho, 133 - - Britain, 94; - late prehistory, 163-175; - invaders, 173 - - Broch, 172 - - Buffalo, in China, 54; - killed by stampede, 86 - - Burials, 66, 86; - in “henges,” 164; - in urns, 168 - - Burins, 75 - - Burma, 90 - - Byblos, 134 - - - Camel, 54 - - Cannibalism, 55 - - Cattle, wild, 85, 112; - in cave art, 85; - domesticated, 15; - at Skara Brae, 142 - - Caucasoids, 34 - - Cave men, 29 - - Caves, 62; - art in, 84 - - Celts, 170 - - Chariot, 160 - - Chicken, domestication of, 107 - - Chiefs, in food-gathering groups, 68 - - Childe, V. Gordon, 8 - - China, 136 - - Choukoutien, 28, 35 - - Choukoutienian, 47 - - Civilization, beginnings, 144, 149, 157; - meaning of, 144 - - Clactonian, 45, 47 - - Clay, used in modeling, 128; - baked, used for tools, 153 - - Club-heads, 82, 94 - - Colonization, in America, 142; - in Europe, 142 - - Combe Capelle, 30 - - Combe Capelle-Brünn group, 34 - - Commont, Victor, 51 - - Coon, Carlton S., 73 - - Copper, 134 - - Corn, in America, 145 - - Corrals for cattle, 140 - - “Cradle of mankind,” 136 - - Cremation, 167 - - Crete, 162 - - Cro-Magnon, 30, 34 - - Cultivation, incipient, 105, 109, 111 - - Culture, change, 99; - characteristics, defined, 38, 49; - prehistoric, 39 - - - Danube Valley, used as route from Asia, 138 - - Dates, 153 - - Deer, 54, 96 - - Dog, domesticated, 96 - - Domestication, of animals, 100, 105, 107; - of plants, 100 - - “Dragon teeth” fossils in China, 28 - - Drill, 77 - - Dubois, Eugene, 26 - - - Early Dynastic Period, Mesopotamia, 147 - - East Spanish art, 72, 85 - - Egypt, 70, 126 - - Ehringsdorf, 31 - - Elephant, 54 - - Emiliani, Cesare, 18 - - Emiran flake point, 73 - - England, 163-168; - prehistoric, 19, 40; - farmers in, 140 - - Eoanthropus dawsoni, 29 - - Eoliths, 41 - - Erich, 152 - - Eridu, 152 - - Euphrates River, floods in, 148 - - Europe, cave dwellings, 58; - at end of Ice Age, 93; - early farmers, 140; - glaciers in, 40; - huts in, 86; - routes into, 137-140; - spread of food-production to, 136 - - - Far East, 69, 90 - - Farmers, 103 - - Fauresmith industry, 67 - - Fayum, 135; - radiocarbon date, 146 - - “Fertile Crescent,” 107, 146 - - Figurines, “Venus,” 84; - at Jarmo, 128; - at Ubaid, 153 - - Fire, used by Peking man, 54 - - First Dynasty, Egypt, 147 - - Fish-hooks, 80, 94 - - Fishing, 80; - by food-producers, 122 - - Fish-lines, 80 - - Fish spears, 94 - - Flint industry, 127 - - Fontéchevade, 32, 56, 58 - - Food-collecting, 104, 121; - end of, 104 - - Food-gatherers, 53, 176 - - Food-gathering, 99, 104; - in Old World, 104; - stages of, 104 - - Food-producers, 176 - - Food-producing economy, 122; - in America, 145; - in Asia, 105 - - Food-producing revolution, 99, 105; - causes of, 101; - preconditions for, 100 - - Food-production, beginnings of, 99; - carried to Europe, 110 - - Food-vessel folk, 164 - - “Forest folk,” 97, 98, 104, 110 - - Fox, Sir Cyril, 174 - - France, caves in, 56 - - - Galley Hill (fossil type), 29 - - Garrod, D. A., 73 - - Gazelle, 114 - - Germany, 94 - - Ghassul, 156 - - Glaciers, 18, 30; - destruction by, 40 - - Goat, wild, 108; - domesticated, 128 - - Grain, first planted, 20 - - Graves, passage, 141; - gallery, 141 - - Greece, civilization in, 163; - as route to western Europe, 138; - towns in, 162 - - Grimaldi skeletons, 34 - - - Hackberry seeds used as food, 55 - - Halaf, 151; - assemblage, 151 - - Hallstatt, tradition, 169 - - Hand, development of, 24, 25 - - Hand adzes, 46 - - Hand axes, 44 - - Harpoons, antler, 83, 94; - bone, 82, 94 - - Hassuna, 131; - assemblage, 131, 132 - - Heidelberg, fossil type, 28 - - Hill-forts, in England, 171; - in Scotland, 172 - - Hilly flanks of Near East, 107, 108, 125, 131, 146, 147 - - History, beginning of, 7, 17 - - Hoes, 112 - - Holland, 164 - - Homo sapiens, 32 - - Hooton, E. A., 34 - - Horse, 112; - wild, in cave art, 85; - in China, 54 - - Hotu cave, 126 - - Houses, 122; - at Jarmo, 128; - at Halaf, 151 - - Howe, Bruce, 116 - - Howell, F. Clark, 30 - - Hunting, 93 - - - Ice Age, in Asia, 99; - beginning of, 18; - glaciers in, 41; - last glaciation, 93 - - Incas, 145 - - India, 90, 136 - - Industrialization, 178 - - Industry, blade-tool, 88; - defined, 58; - ground stone, 94 - - Internationalism, 162 - - Iran, 107, 147 - - Iraq, 107, 124, 127, 136, 147 - - Iron, introduction of, 170 - - Irrigation, 123, 149, 155 - - Italy, 138 - - - Jacobsen, T. J., 157 - - Jarmo, 109, 126, 128, 130; - assemblage, 129 - - Java, 23, 29 - - Java man, 26, 27, 29 - - Jefferson, Thomas, 11 - - Jericho, 119, 133 - - Judaidah, 134 - - - Kafuan, 48 - - Kanam, 23, 36 - - Karim Shahir, 116-119, 124; - assemblage, 116, 117 - - Keith, Sir Arthur, 33 - - Kelley, Harper, 51 - - Kharga, 126 - - Khartoum, 136 - - Knives, 80 - - Krogman, W. M., 3, 25 - - - Lamps, 85 - - Land bridges in Mediterranean, 19 - - La Tène phase, 170 - - Laurel leaf point, 78, 89 - - Leakey, L. S. B., 40 - - Le Moustier, 57 - - Levalloisian, 47, 61, 62 - - Levalloiso-Mousterian, 47, 63 - - Little Woodbury, 170 - - - Magic, used by hunters, 123 - - Maglemosian, assemblage, 94, 95; - folk, 98 - - Makapan, 40 - - Mammoth, 93; - in cave art, 85 - - “Man-apes,” 26 - - Mango, 107 - - Mankind, age, 17 - - Maringer, J., 45 - - Markets, 155 - - Marston, A. T., 11 - - Mathiassen, T., 97 - - McCown, T. D., 33 - - Meganthropus, 26, 27, 36 - - Men, defined, 25; - modern, 32 - - Merimde, 135 - - Mersin, 133 - - Metal-workers, 160, 163, 167, 172 - - Micoquian, 48, 60 - - Microliths, 87; - at Jarmo, 130; - “lunates,” 87; - trapezoids, 87; - triangles, 87 - - Minerals used as coloring matter, 66 - - Mine-shafts, 140 - - M’lefaat, 126, 127 - - Mongoloids, 29, 90 - - Mortars, 114, 118, 127 - - Mounds, how formed, 12 - - Mount Carmel, 11, 33, 52, 59, 64, 69, 113, 114 - - “Mousterian man,” 64 - - “Mousterian” tools, 61, 62; - of Acheulean tradition, 62 - - Movius, H. L., 47 - - - Natufian, animals in, 114; - assemblage, 113, 114, 115; - burials, 114; - date of, 113 - - Neanderthal man, 29, 30, 31, 56 - - Near East, beginnings of civilization in, 20, 144; - cave sites, 58; - climate in Ice Age, 99; - “Fertile Crescent,” 107, 146; - food-production in, 99; - Natufian assemblage in, 113-115; - stone tools, 114 - - Needles, 80 - - Negroid, 34 - - New World, 90 - - Nile River valley, 102, 134; - floods in, 148 - - Nuclear area, 106, 110; - in Near East, 107 - - - Obsidian, used for blade tools, 71; - at Jarmo, 130 - - Ochre, red, with burials, 86 - - Oldowan, 48 - - Old World, 67, 70, 90; - continental phases in, 18 - - Olorgesailie, 40, 51 - - Ostrich, in China, 54 - - Ovens, 128 - - Oxygen isotopes, 18 - - - Paintings in caves, 83 - - Paleoanthropic man, 50 - - Palestine, burials, 56; - cave sites, 52; - types of man, 69 - - Parpallo, 89 - - Patjitanian, 45, 47 - - Pebble tools, 42 - - Peking cave, 54; - animals in, 54 - - Peking man, 27, 28, 29, 54, 58 - - Pendants, 80; - bone, 114 - - Pestle, 114 - - Peterborough, 141; - assemblage, 141 - - Pictographic signs, 158 - - Pig, wild, 108 - - “Piltdown man,” 29 - - Pins, 80 - - Pithecanthropus, 26, 27, 30, 36 - - Pleistocene, 18, 25 - - Plows developed, 123 - - Points, arrow, 76; - laurel leaf, 78; - shouldered, 78, 79; - split-based bone, 80, 82; - tanged, 76; - willow leaf, 78 - - Potatoes, in America, 145 - - Pottery, 122, 130, 156; - decorated, 142; - painted, 131, 151, 152; - Susa style, 156; - in tombs, 141 - - Prehistory, defined, 7; - range of, 18 - - Pre-neanderthaloids, 30, 31, 37 - - Pre-Solutrean point, 89 - - Pre-Stellenbosch, 48 - - Proto-Literate assemblage, 157-160 - - - Race, 35; - biological, 36; - “pure,” 16 - - Radioactivity, 9, 10 - - Radioactive carbon dates, 18, 92, 120, 130, 135, 156 - - Redfield, Robert, 38, 49 - - Reed, C. A., 128 - - Reindeer, 94 - - Rhinoceros, 93; - in cave art, 85 - - Rhodesian man, 32 - - Riss glaciation, 58 - - Rock-shelters, 58; - art in, 85 - - - Saccopastore, 31 - - Sahara Desert, 34, 102 - - Samarra, 152; - pottery, 131, 152 - - Sangoan industry, 67 - - Sauer, Carl, 136 - - Sbaikian point, 89 - - Schliemann, H., 11, 12 - - Scotland, 171 - - Scraper, flake, 79; - end-scraper on blade, 77, 78; - keel-shaped, 79, 80, 81 - - Sculpture in caves, 83 - - Sebilian III, 126 - - Shaheinab, 135 - - Sheep, wild, 108; - at Skara Brae, 142; - in China, 54 - - Shellfish, 142 - - Ship, Ubaidian, 153 - - Sialk, 126, 134; - assemblage, 134 - - Siberia, 88; - pathway to New World, 98 - - Sickle, 112, 153; - blade, 113, 130 - - Silo, 122 - - Sinanthropus, 27, 30, 35 - - Skara Brae, 142 - - Snails used as food, 128 - - Soan, 47 - - Solecki, R., 116 - - Solo (fossil type), 29, 32 - - Solutrean industry, 77 - - Spear, shaft, 78; - thrower, 82, 83 - - Speech, development of organs of, 25 - - Squash, in America, 145 - - Steinheim fossil skull, 28 - - Stillbay industry, 67 - - Stonehenge, 166 - - Stratification, in caves, 12, 57; - in sites, 12 - - Swanscombe (fossil type), 11, 28 - - Syria, 107 - - - Tabun, 60, 71 - - Tardenoisian, 97 - - Taro, 107 - - Tasa, 135 - - Tayacian, 47, 59 - - Teeth, pierced, in beads and pendants, 114 - - Temples, 123, 155 - - Tepe Gawra, 156 - - Ternafine, 29 - - Teshik Tash, 69 - - Textiles, 122 - - Thong-stropper, 80 - - Tigris River, floods in, 148 - - Toggle, 80 - - Tomatoes, in America, 145 - - Tombs, megalithic, 141 - - Tool-making, 42, 49 - - Tool-preparation traditions, 65 - - Tools, 62; - antler, 80; - blade, 70, 71, 75; - bone, 66; - chopper, 47; - core-biface, 43, 48, 60, 61; - flake, 44, 47, 51, 60, 64; - flint, 80, 127; - ground stone, 68, 127; - handles, 94; - pebble, 42, 43, 48, 53; - use of, 24 - - Touf (mud wall), 128 - - Toynbee, A. J., 101 - - Trade, 130, 155, 162 - - Traders, 167 - - Traditions, 15; - blade tool, 70; - definition of, 51; - interpretation of, 49; - tool-making, 42, 48; - chopper-tool, 47; - chopper-chopping tool, 45; - core-biface, 43, 48; - flake, 44, 47; - pebble tool, 42, 48 - - Tool-making, prehistory of, 42 - - Turkey, 107, 108 - - - Ubaid, 153; - assemblage, 153-155 - - Urnfields, 168, 169 - - - Village-farming community era, 105, 119 - - - Wad B, 72 - - Wadjak, 34 - - Warka phase, 156; - assemblage, 156 - - Washburn, Sherwood L., 36 - - Water buffalo, domestication of, 107 - - Weidenreich, F., 29, 34 - - Wessex, 166, 167 - - Wheat, wild, 108; - partially domesticated, 127 - - Willow leaf point, 78 - - Windmill Hill, 138; - assemblage, 138, 140 - - Witch doctors, 68 - - Wool, 112; - in garments, 167 - - Writing, 158; - cuneiform, 158 - - Würm I glaciation, 58 - - - Zebu cattle, domestication of, 107 - - Zeuner, F. E., 73 - - - - - * * * * * * - - - - -Transcriber’s note: - -Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a -predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not -changed. - -Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced -quotation marks retained. - -Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained. - -Index not checked for proper alphabetization or correct page references. - -In the original book, chapter headings were accompanied by -illustrations, sometimes above, sometimes below, and sometimes -adjacent. In this eBook those ilustrations always appear below the -headings. - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PREHISTORIC MEN*** - - -******* This file should be named 52664-0.txt or 52664-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/2/6/6/52664 - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |