The bronze age and the Celtic world - Universal History Library
The bronze age and the Celtic world - Universal History Library
The bronze age and the Celtic world - Universal History Library
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
CHRONOLOGY 171<br />
be relatively modern, while <strong>the</strong> hiatus between that period <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> neolithic <strong>age</strong> has<br />
disappeared. Thanks to <strong>the</strong> work of Baron de Geer" we have some fotmdation for a<br />
chronology of this period, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> results of this work have long been made known to<br />
Enghsh readers by Professor Sollas.' <strong>The</strong>re seems to be httle doubt but that <strong>the</strong> pause<br />
in <strong>the</strong> retreat of <strong>the</strong> Sc<strong>and</strong>inavian ice by Lake Ragunda, which de Geer has dated at<br />
5000 B.C., may be equated, as has been shown by Brooks,^ with <strong>the</strong> Daun stadium of<br />
Penck.* <strong>The</strong> Fenno-Sc<strong>and</strong>ian moraines, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r h<strong>and</strong>, can only be equated with<br />
<strong>the</strong> Biihl advance which took place towards <strong>the</strong> close of Magdalenian times, <strong>and</strong> this<br />
gives us a date of 7000 to 7500 B.C. for Magdalenian. <strong>The</strong> Goti-glacial moraines<br />
seem to indicate <strong>the</strong> second Wiirm maximum, <strong>and</strong> SoUas' estimate for <strong>the</strong> interval<br />
seems eminently reasonable <strong>and</strong> has been adopted here ; <strong>the</strong> first maximum of <strong>the</strong><br />
Wiirm seems represented by <strong>the</strong> Dani-glacial line.<br />
<strong>The</strong> later dates depend, by a series of synchronisms, on those ascertained from<br />
<strong>the</strong> Egyptian monuments, <strong>and</strong> it is unfortunate that on this point authorities differ.<br />
<strong>The</strong> difference between <strong>the</strong> various schools of thought has been well <strong>and</strong> fairly<br />
summarised by Dr. Hall ;' <strong>the</strong> two great protagonists are Professor Fhnders Petrie* <strong>and</strong><br />
Dr. Edouard Meyer,' whose system has been adopted with slight modifications by<br />
Professor Breasted.' For this reason <strong>the</strong>re are alternative systems in vogue for <strong>the</strong><br />
period preceding 1580 B.C.<br />
Since so many great authorities, well acquainted with <strong>the</strong> facts <strong>and</strong> well able to<br />
interpret <strong>the</strong>m, differ as to <strong>the</strong> result, one, who is not an Egyptologist, can decide<br />
between <strong>the</strong>m only by testing <strong>the</strong> application of both systems in his own field of study.<br />
Having appUed this test to both schemes, I have no hesitation in accepting <strong>the</strong> latter<br />
or shorter chronology, for by <strong>the</strong> former I find that <strong>the</strong> earUer periods would be more<br />
prolonged than <strong>the</strong> evolution of <strong>the</strong> culture warrants. I have <strong>the</strong>refore, throughout this<br />
work used dates based on those given for Egypt by Professor Breasted. This, of course,<br />
does not apply to Mesopotamian dates.<br />
' Geer (1896), (1912). J Hall (1913) 15-30-<br />
» Sollas (191 1) 395-397. ' Petrie (1906) ch. xii.<br />
3 Brooks (1921). ^ Meyer (1904).<br />
4 Penck & Bruckner (1909). 8 Breasted (1912).