Chapter 5

SeeThe Life and Works of John Arbuthnot(1892), by George A. Aitken.

ARCACHON,a coast town of south-western France, in the department of Gironde, 37 m. W.S.W. of Bordeaux on the Southern railway. Pop. (1906) 9006. Arcachon is situated on the southern border of the lagoon of Arcachon at the foot of dunes covered with splendid pine-woods. It comprises two distinct parts, the summer town, extending for 2½ m. along the shore, and bordered by a firm sandy beach, frequented by bathers, and the winter town, farther inland, consisting of numerous villas scattered amongst the pines.

Owing to the mildness of its climate the winter town is a resort for consumptive patients. The principal industries are oyster-breeding, which is conducted on a very large scale, and fishing. The port has trade with Spain and England.

ARCADE,in architecture, a range of arches, supported either by columns or piers; isolated in the case of those separating the nave of a church from the aisles, or forming the front of a covered ambulatory, as in the cloisters in Italy and Sicily, round the Ducal Palace or the Square of St Mark’s, Venice, round the courts of the palaces in Italy, or in Paris round the Palais-Royal and the Place des Vosges. The earliest examples known are those of the Tabularium, the theatre of Marcellus, and the Colosseum, in Rome. In the palace of Diocletian at Spalato the principal street had an arcade on either side, the arches of which rested direct on the capital without any intervening entablature or impost block. The term is also applied to the galleries, employed decoratively, on the façades of the Italian churches, and carried round the apses where they are known as eaves-galleries. Sometimes these arcades project from the wall sufficiently to allow of a passage behind, and sometimes they are built into and form part of the wall; in the latter case, they are known as blind or wall arcades; and they were constantly employed to decorate the lower part of the walls of the aisles and the choir-aisles in English churches. Externally, blind arcades are more often found in Italy and Sicily, but there are examples inEngland at Canterbury, Ely, Peterborough, Norwich, St John’s (Chester), Colchester and elsewhere. Internally, the oldest example is that of the old refectory in Westminster Abbey (fig. 1). Sometimes the design is varied with interlacing arches as in St John’s Devizes (fig. 2), and Beverley Minster (fig. 3). In Sicily and the south of Italy these interlacing arcades are the special characteristic of the Saracenic work there found, and their origin may be found in the interlaced arches of the Mosque of Cordova in Spain. In the cathedral of Palermo and at Monreale they are carried round the apses at the east end. At Caserta-Vecchia, in South Italy, they decorate the lantern over the crossing, and at Amain the turrets on the north-west campanile.

The term is also applied to the covered passages which form thoroughfares from one street to another, as in the Burlington Arcade, London; in Paris such an arcade is usually calledpassage, and in Italygalleria.

(R. P. S.)

ARCADELT,orArchadelt, Jacob(c.1514-c.1556), a Netherlands composer, of the early part of the Golden Age. In 1539 he left a position at Florence to teach the choristers of St Peter’s, Rome, and became one of the papal singers in 1540. He was a prolific church composer, but the works published in his Italian time consist entirely of madrigals, five books of which, published at Venice, probably gave a great stimulus to the beginnings of the Venetian school of composition. In 1555 he left Italy and entered the service of Cardinal Charles of Lorraine, duke of Guise, and after this published three volumes of masses, besides contributing motets to various collections. TheAve Maria, ascribed to him and transcribed as a pianoforte piece by Liszt, does not seem to be traced to an earlier source than its edition by Sir Henry Bishop, which has possibly the same kind of origin in Arcadelt as the hymn tune “Palestrina” has in the delicate and subtleGloriaof Palestrina’sMagnificat Quinti Toni, the fifth in his firstBook of Magnificats.

ARCADIA,a district of Greece, forming the central plateau of Peloponnesus. Shut off from the coast lands on all sides by mountain barriers, which rise in the northernpeaks of Erymanthus (mod.Olonos) to 7400, of Cyllene (Ziria) to 7900, in the southern corner buttresses of Parthenium and Lycaeum to more than 5000 ft., this inland plateau is again divided by numerous subsidiary ranges. In eastern or “locked” Arcadia these heights run in parallel courses intersected by cross-ridges, enclosing a series of upland plains whose waters have no egress save by underground channels orzerethra. The western country is more open, with isolated mountain-groups and winding valleys, where the Alpheus with its tributaries the Ladon and Erymanthus drains off in a complex river-system the overflow from all Arcadia. The ancient inhabitants were a nation of shepherds and huntsmen, worshipping Pan, Hermes and Artemis, primitive nature-deities. The difficulties of communication and especially the lack of a seaboard seriously hindered intercourse with the rest of Greece. Consequently the same population, whose origins Greek tradition removed back into the world’s earliest days, held the land throughout historic times, without even an admixture of Dorian immigrants. Their customs and dialect persisted, the latter maintaining a peculiar resemblance to that of the equally conservative Cypriotes. Thus Arcadia lagged behind the general development of Greece, and its political importance was small owing to chronic feuds between the townships (notably between Mantineia and Tegea) and the readiness of its youth for mercenary service abroad.

The importance of Arcadia in Greek history was due to its position between Sparta and the Isthmus. Unable to force their way through Argolis, the Lacedaemonians early set themselves to secure the passage through the central plateau. The resistance of single cities, and the temporary union of the Arcadians during the second Messenian war, did not defer the complete subjugation of the land beyond the 6th century. In later times revolts were easily stirred up among individual cities, but a united national movement was rarely concerted. Most of these rebellions were easily quelled by Sparta, though in 469 and again in 420 the disaffected cities, backed by Argos, formed a dangerous coalition and came near to establishing their independence. A more whole-hearted attempt at union in 371 after the battle of Leuctra resulted in the formation of a political league out of an old religious synod, and the foundation of a federal capital in a commanding strategic position (seeMegalopolis). But a severe defeat at the hands of Sparta in 368 (the “tearless battle”) and the recrudescence of internal discord soon paralysed this movement. The new fortress of Megalopolis, instead of supplying a centre of national life, merely accentuated the mutual jealousy of the cities. During the Hellenistic age Megalopolis stood staunchly by Macedonia; the rest of Arcadia rebelled against Antipater (330, 323) and Antigonus Gonatas (266). Similarly the various cities were divided in their allegiance between the Achaean and the Aetolian leagues, with the result that Arcadia became the battleground of these confederacies, or fell a prey to Sparta and Macedonia. These conflicts seem to have worn out the land, which already in Roman times had fallen into decay. An influx of Slavonic settlers in the 8th centuryA.D.checked the depopulation for a while, but Arcadia suffered severely from the constant quarrels of its Frankish barons (1205-1460). The succeeding centuries of Turkish rule, combined with an Albanian immigration, raised the prosperity of the land, but in the Wars of Independence the strategic importance of Arcadia once more made it a centre of conflict. In modern times the population remains sparse, and pending the complete restoration of the water conduits the soil is unproductive. The modern department of Arcadia extends to the Gulf of Nauplia with a sea-coast of about 40 m.

Authorities.—Strabo pp. 388 sq.; Pausanias viii.; W.M. Leake,Travels in the Morea(London, 1830), chs. iii., iv., xi.-xviii., xxiii.-xxvi.; E. Curtius,Peloponnesos(Gotha, 1851), i. 153-178; H.F. Tozer,Geography of Greece(London, 1873), pp. 287-292; E.A. Freeman,Federal Government(ed. 1893, London), ch. iv. § 3; B.V. Head,Historia Numorum(Oxford, 1887), pp. 372-373; B. Niese inHermes(1899), pp. 520 f.

(M. O. B. C.)

ARCADIUS(378-408), Roman emperor, the elder son of Theodosius the Great, was created Augustus in 383, and succeeded his father in 395 along with his brother Honorius. The empire was divided between them, Honorius governing the two western prefectures (Gaul and Italy), Arcadius the two eastern (the Orient and Illyricum). Both were feeble, and, in Gibbon’s phrase, slumbered on their thrones, leaving the government to others. Arcadius submitted at first to the guidance of the praetorian prefect Rufinus, and, after his murder (end of 395) by the troops, to the counsels of the eunuch Eutropius (executed end of 399). His consort Eudoxia (daughter of a Frank general, Bauto), a woman of strong will, exercised great influence over him; she died in 404. In the last year of his reign, Anthemius (praetorian prefect) was the chief adviser and support of the throne. The first years of the reign were marked by the ravaging of the Greek peninsula by the West Goths under Alaric (q.v.) in 395-396. The movement of the Goth Gainas (who held the post of master of soldiers) in 399-400 is less famous but was more dangerous. At that time there were two rival political parties at Constantinople, the “Roman” party led by Aurelian (son of Taurus), praetorian prefect, and supported by the empress and a Germanizing and Arianizing party led by Aurelian’s brother (possibly Caesarius, praetorian prefect in 400). Gainas entered into a close league with the latter; fomented a Gothic rebellion in Phrygia; and forced the emperor to put Eutropius to death. For some months he and the party which he supported were supreme in Constantinople. He was, however, finally forced to leave, and having plundered for some time in Thrace was captured and killed by the loyal Goth Fravitta. The Roman party recovered its power; Aurelian was again praetorian prefect in 402; and the Germanization which was to befall the western world was averted from the east. Another important question was decided in this reign, the relation of the patriarch of Constantinople to the emperor. The struggle between the court and the patriarch John Chrysostom (q.v.), who assumed an independent attitude and gravely offended the empress by his sermons against the worldliness and frivolity of the court, with open allusions to herself, resulted in his fall and exile (404). This virtually determined the subordination of the patriarchof Constantinople to the emperor. The rivalry of the see of Alexandria with Constantinople was also displayed in the contest, Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, assisting the court in bringing about the fall of Chrysostom. Throughout the reign of Arcadius there was estrangement and jealousy between the two brothers or their governments. The principal ground of this hostility was probably dissatisfaction on both sides with the territorial partition. The line had been drawn east of Dalmatia. The ministers of Arcadius desired to annex Dalmatia to his portion, while the general Stilicho, who was supreme in the west, wished to wrest from the eastern realm the prefecture of Illyricum or a considerable part of it. His designs were unsuccessful, and during the reign of Theodosius II., son of Arcadius (who died in 408), Dalmatia was transferred to the dominion of the eastern ruler.

Authorities.—Ancient: Fragments of Eunapius and Olympiodorus (in Müller’sFragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, vol. iv.); fragments of Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen, Zosimus, Synesius of Cyrene (“The Egyptian”), Claudian. Modern: Gibbon’sDecline and Fall, vol. iii., ed. Bury; J.B. Bury,Later Roman Empire, vol. i. (1889); T. Hodgkin,Italy and her Invaders, vol. i. (ed. 2, 1892); Güldenpenning,Geschichte des ostromischen Reiches unter den Kaisern Arcadius und Theodosius II.(1885).

ARCADIUS,of Antioch, Greek grammarian, flourished in the 2nd centuryA.D.According to Suidas, he wrote treatises on orthography and syntax, and an onomaticon (vocabulary), described as a wonderful production. An epitome of the great work of Herodian on general prosody in twenty books, wrongly attributed to Arcadius, is probably the work of Theodosius of Alexandria or a grammarian named Aristodemus. This epitome (Περὶ Τόνων) only includes nineteen books of the original work; the twentieth is the work of a forger of the 16th century. Although meagre and carelessly put together, it is valuable, since it preserves the order of the original and thus affords a trustworthy foundation for its reconstruction.

Text by Barker, 1823; Schmidt, 1860; see also Galland,De Arcadii qui fertur libra de accentibus(1882).

ARCELLA(C.G. Ehrenberg), a genus of lobose Rhizopoda, characterized by a chitinous plano-convex shell, the circular aperture central on the flat ventral face, and more than one nucleus and contractile vacuole. It can develop vacuoles, or rather fine bubbles of carbonic acid gas in its cytoplasm, to float up to the surface of the water.

ARCESILAUS(316-241B.C.), a Greek philosopher and founder of the New, or Middle, Academy (seeAcademy, Greek). Born at Pitane in Aeolis, he was trained by Autolycus, the mathematician, and later at Athens by Theophrastus and Crantor, by whom he was led to join the Academy. He subsequently became intimate with Polemon and Crates, whom he succeeded as head of the school. Diogenes Laërtius says that he died of excessive drinking, but the testimony of others (e.g.Cleanthes) and his own precepts discredit the story, and he is known to have been much respected by the Athenians. His doctrines, which must be gathered from the writings of others (Cicero,Acad.i. 12, iv. 24;De Orat.iii. 18; Diogenes Laërtius iv. 28; Sextus Empiricus,Adv. Math.vii. 150,Pyrrh. Hyp.i. 233), represent an attack on the Stoicφαντασία καταληπτική(Criterion) and are based on the sceptical element (seeScepticism) which was latent in the later writings of Plato. He held that strength of intellectual conviction cannot be regarded as valid, inasmuch as it is characteristic equally of contradictory convictions. The uncertainty of sensibledataapplies equally to the conclusions of reason, and therefore man must be content withprobabilitywhich is sufficient as a practical guide. “We know nothing, not even our ignorance”; therefore the wise man will be content with an agnostic attitude. He made use of the Socratic method of instruction and left no writings. His arguments were marked by incisive humour and fertility of ideas.

See R. Brodeisen,De Arcesila philosopho(1821); Aug. Geffers,De Arcesila(1842); Ritter and Preller,Hist, philos. graec.(1898); Ed. Zeller,Phil. d. Griech.(iii. 1448); and general works underScepticism.

ARCH, JOSEPH(1826- ), English politician, founder of the National Agricultural Labourers’ Union, was born at Barford, a village in Warwickshire, on the 10th of November 1826. His parents belonged to the labouring class. He inherited a strong sentiment of independence from his mother; and his objections to the social homage expected by those whom the catechism boldly styled his “betters” made him an “agitator.” Having educated himself by unremitting exertions, and acquired fluency of speech as a Methodist local preacher, he founded in 1872 the National Agricultural Labourers’ Union, of which he was president. A rise then came in the wages of agricultural labourers, but this had the unforeseen effect of destroying the union; for the labourers, deeming their object gained, ceased to “agitate.” Mr Arch nevertheless retained sufficient popularity to be returned to parliament for north-west Norfolk in 1885; and although defeated next year owing to his advocacy of Irish Home Rule, he regained his seat in 1892, and held it in 1895, retiring in 1900. He was deservedly respected in the House of Commons; seldom has an agitator been so little of a demagogue.

A biography written by himself or under his direction, and edited by Lady Warwick (1898), tells the story of his career.

ARCH,1in building, a constructional arrangement of blocks of any hard material, so disposed on the lines of some curve that they give mutual support one to the other.

The blocks, which are technically known as voussoirs, should be of a wedge shape, the centre or top block (see fig. 1, A) being the keystone A; the lower blocks B B which rest on the supporting pier are the springers, the upper surface of which is called the skewback, C C; the side blocks, as D, are termed the haunches. The lower surface or soffit of the arch is the intrados, E, and the upper surface the extrados, F. The rise of the arch is the distance from the springing to the soffit, G, the width between the springers is called the span, H, and the radius I. The triangular spaces between the arches are termed spandrils, K.

The arch is employed for two purposes:—(1) to span an opening in a wall and support the superstructure; (2) when continuous to form a vault known as a barrel or waggon vault.

The arch has been used from time immemorial by every nation, but owing to the tendency of the upper portion to sink, especially when bearing any superincumbent weight, it requires strong lateral support, and it is for this reason that in the earliest examples in unburnt brick at Nippur in Chaldaea,c.4000B.C., and at Rakakna (Requaqna) and Dendera in Egypt, 3500-3000B.C., it was employed only below the level of the ground which served as an abutment on either side.

In the building of an arch, the voussoirs have to be temporarilysupported, until the keystone is inserted. This at the present day is effected by means of centreing an assemblage of timbers framed together, with its upper surface of the same form as the arch required; the voussoirs are laid on the centreing till the ring of the arch is completed. In the case of arches of small span, such as the early examples referred to, limited to about 6 ft., such centreing might be dispensed with in various ways, but it is difficult to see how the arches of the great entrance gateways, shown in the Assyrian bas-reliefs, could have been built without temporary support of some kind. In those days, when any amount of labour could be obtained, even the erection of a temporary wall might have been less costly than the employment of timber, of which there was great scarcity.

The Assyrian tradition would seem to have descended first to the Parthian builders, who in the palace of El Hadr built semicircular arches with regular voussoirs decoratively treated. The Sassanians who followed them employed the elliptical or egg-shaped arch, of which the lower part was built in horizontal courses up to about one-third of the height, which lessened the span of the arched portion.

In Europe the earliest arches were those built by the Etruscans, either over canals (see articleArchitecture:Etruscan), or in the entrance gateways of their towns. The skew-arch in the gateway at Perugia shows great knowledge in its execution. From the Etruscans the adoption of the arch passed to the Romans, who certainly employed centreing of some kind, but always economized its use, as is clearly shown by Choisy. Although their walls from the Augustan age were built in concrete, arches of brick were always turned over their entrance doorways, sometimes in two or three rings. The Romans utilized the arch in other ways, sometimes burying it in their concrete construction, as in their vaults, and sometimes introducing it as a veneer only, as in the Pantheon. In their monumental structures in stone, the arch was sometimes built with regular voussoirs,i.e.with a semicircular extrados, and sometimes with the joint carried far beyond. The latter was not done in the early examples of the Tabularium and the Theatre of Marcellus, but in the Colosseum and all the arches of triumph the joints run through the spandrils, notwithstanding the recognition of the arch proper by its moulded archivolt.

Although the value of the pointed arch as a stronger constructional feature than the semicircular (owing to the tendency to sink in the keystone of the latter) had been recognized by the Assyrian builders, who employed it in their drains, it was not used systematically as an architectural feature till the 9th century, in the mosque of Tulun at Cairo; it seems to have been regarded by the Mahommedans as an emblem of their faith, and its use spread through Syria to Persia, was brought to Sicily from Egypt, and was taken back by the Sicilian masons to Palestine and employed throughout the Crusaders’ churches during the 12th century. As the pointed arch had already, for constructional reasons, been employed in Périgord from the commencement of the 11th century, it does not follow that the Crusaders brought it from Palestine, but there is no doubt that its universal employment in France early in the 12th century may have been partly due to its adoption in the Crusaders’ churches. At first in Gothic work both the semicircular and pointed arches were used simultaneously in the same building, the larger arches being pointed, the smaller ones and windows being semicircular. The great value of the pointed arch in vaulting is described in the articleVault.

We have suggested that the pointed arch became an emblem of Mahommedan faith, and it was introduced in India but not as a constructive feature, for the Hindus objected to the arch, which they saynever sleeps, meaning that it is always exerting a thrust which tends to its destruction. In India therefore it was built in horizontal courses with vertical slabs leaning against one another to form the apex. The Moors of north Africa, however, never employed it, preferring the horseshoe arch which they brought into Spain and developed in the mosque of Cordova. In the additions made to this mosque the prayer chamber was enriched by the caliph Mansur, who, to eke out the height, raised arch upon arch. In the Alhambra it appears in the decorative plaster work, and travels northwards into the south of France, where at Le Puy and elsewhere it is found decorating doorways and windows; in England it was employed towards the end of the 12th century.

About the middle of the 14th century at Gloucester the four-centred pointed arch was introduced, which became afterwards the leading characteristic feature of the Tudor style. In France they adopted the three-centred arch in the 15th century.

The ogee arch was the natural result of the development of tracery in the commencement of the 14th century, and in Gloucester (about 1310) the foliations were run one into the other without the enclosing circles. About the middle of the 14th century, in the arcade of the first storey of the ducal palace in Venice, flowing tracery is found, from which the ogee arch there was probably derived, as throughout Venice it becomes the favourite feature in domestic architecture of that and the succeeding century.

The arches are of various forms as follows:—

2. Semicircular arch, the centre of which is in the same line with its springers.

3. Segmental arch, where the centre is below the springing.

4. Horseshoe arch, with the centre above the springing; employed in Moorish architecture.

5. Stilted arches, where the centre is below the springing, but the sides are carried down vertically.

6. Equilateral pointed arches, described from two centres, the radius being the whole width of the arch.

7. Drop arches, with centres within the arch.

8. Lancet arches, with centres outside the arch.

9. Three centre arches, employed in French Flamboyant.

10. Four centre arches, employed in the Perpendicular and Tudor periods.

11. Ogee arches, with curves of counter flexure, found in English Decorated and French Flamboyant.

12. Pointed horseshoe arches, found in the mosque of Tulun, Cairo, 9th century.

13. Pointed foiled arches, in the arcades of Beverley Minster (c. 1230) and Netley Abbey.

14. Cusped arch; Christchurch Priory, Hants.

15. Multifoil cusped arch, invented by the Moors at Cordova in the 10th century.

16. Flat arch, where the soffit is horizontal and sometimes slightly cambered (dotted line).

17. Upright elliptical arch, sometimes called the egg-shaped arch, employed in Egyptian and Sassanian architecture.

18. The Tuscan arch, where the extrados takes the form of a pointed arch.

19. The joggled arch used in medieval chimneypieces and in Mahommedan architecture.

20. The discharging or relieving arch, built above the architrave or lintel to take off the weight of the superstructure.

21. The relieving arch as used in Egypt, in the pyramid of Cheops; and in Saxon architecture, where it was built with Roman bricks or tiles, or consisted of two sloping slabs of stone.

(R. P. S.)

1The ultimate derivation of “arch” is the Latinarcus, a bow, or arch, in origin meaning something bent, from which through the French is also derived “arc,” a curve. In French there are two wordsarche, one meaning a chest or coffer, from Latinarca(arcere, to keep close), hence the English “ark”; the other meaning a vaulted arch, such as that of a bridge, and derived from a Low Latin corruption ofarcus, into arca (du Cange,Glossarium,s.v.). The word “arch,” prefixed to names of offices, seen in “archbishop,” “archdeacon,” “archduke,” &c., means “principal” or “chief,” and comes from the Greek prefixἀρχ-orἀρχι-fromἄρχειν, to begin, lead, or rule; it is also prefixed to other words, and usually with words implying hatred or detestation, such as “arch-fiend”, “arch-scoundrel”; it is from an adaptation of this use, as seen in such expressions as “arch-rogue,” extended to “arch-look,” “arch-face,” that the word comes to mean a mischievous, roguish expression of face or demeanour.

ARCHAEOLOGY(from Gr.ἀρχαῖα, ancient things, andλόγος, theory or science), a general term for the study of antiquities. The precise application of the term has varied from time to time with the progress of knowledge, according to the character of the subjects investigated and the purpose for which they were studied. At one time it was thought improper to use it in relation to any but the artistic remains of Greece and Rome,i.e.the so-calledclassical archaeology(now dealt with in this encyclopaedia under the headings ofGreek ArtandRoman Art); but of late years it has commonly been accepted as including the whole range of ancient human activity, from the first traceable appearance of man on the earth to the middle ages. It may thus be conceived how vast a field archaeology embraces, and how intimately it is connected with the sciences of geology (q.v.) and anthropology (q.v.), while it naturally includes within its borders the consideration of all the civilizations of ancient times.

In dealing with so vast a subject, it becomes necessary to distinguish. The archaeology of zoological species constitutes the sphere of palaeontology (q.v.), while that of botanical species is dealt with as palaeobotany (q.v.); and every different science thus has its archaeological side. For practical purposes it is now convenient to separate the sphere of archaeology in its relation to the study of the purelyartisticcharacter of ancient remains, from that of the investigation of these remains as an instrument for arriving at conclusions as to the political and socialhistoryof the nations of antiquity; and in this work the former is regarded primarily as “art” and dealt with in the articles devoted to the history of art or the separate arts, while “archaeology” is particularly regarded as the study of the evidences for the history of mankind, whether or not the remains are themselves artistically and aesthetically valuable. In this sense a knowledge of the archaeology is part of the materials from which every historical article in this encyclopaedia is constructed, and in recent years no subject has been more fertile in yielding information than “archaeology,” as representing the work of trained excavators and students of antiquity in all parts of the world, but notably in the countries round the Mediterranean. It is for its services in illuminating the days before those of documentary history and for checking and reinforcing the evidence of the raw material (the “unwritten history” of architecture, tombs, art-products, &c.), that recent archaeological work has been so notable. The work of the literary critic and historian has been amplified by the spade-work of the expert excavator and explorer to an extent undreamt of by former generations; and ancient remains, instead of being treated merely as interesting objects of art, have been forced to give up their secret to the historian, as evidence for the period, character and affiliations of the peoples who produced and used them. The increase of precise knowledge of the past, due to greater opportunities of topographical research, more care and observation in dealing with ancient remains and improved methods of studying them in museums (q.v.) and collections, has led to more accurate reading of results by a comparison of views, under the auspices of learned societies and institutions, thus raising archaeology from among the more empirical branches of learning into the region of the more exact sciences. This change has improved not only the status of archaeology but also its material, for the higher standard of work now demanded necessarily acts as a deterrent on the poorly equipped worker, and the tendency is for the general result to be of a higher quality.

The archaeological details concerning all subjects which have their “unwritten history” are dealt with in the separate articles in this work, including the ancient civilizations of Assyria, Egypt and other countries and peoples, while the articles on separate sites where excavations have been particularly noteworthy may be referred to for their special interest; see alsoAnthropology;Ethnology, &c. It remains here to deal generally with the early conditions of the prehistoric ancient world in their broader aspects, which constitute the starting-place for the archaeologist in various parts of the world at different times, and the foundations of our present understanding of the primitive epochs in the history of man.

The beginning of archaeology, as the study of pre-documentary history, may be broadly held to follow on the last of the geological periods, viz., the Quaternary, though it is claimed, and with some reason, that traces of man have been found inQuaternary period.deposits of the preceding or Tertiary period. Although there is no valid reason against the existence of Tertiary man, it must be confessed that the evidence in favour of the belief is of a very inconclusive and unconvincing kind. The discussion has been mainly confined to the two questions (1) whether the deposit containing the relics was without doubt of Tertiary times, and (2) whether the objects found showed undoubted signs of human workmanship. Vast quantities of material have been brought forward, and endless discussions have taken place, but hitherto without carrying entire conviction to the minds of the more serious and cautious students of prehistoric archaeology. A chronic difficulty, and one which can never be entirely removed, is our ignorance of the precise methods of nature’s working. It is an obvious fact, that natural forces, such as glacial action, earthquakes, landslips and the like, must crush and chip flints and break up animal remains, grinding and scratching them in masses of gravel or sand. If it were possible to determine with precision what’ were the peculiarities of the flint or bone, thus altered by natural agencies, it would be easy to separate them from others purposely made by man to serve some useful end. Our present knowledge, however, does not allow us to go so far in dealing with the ruder early attempts of man to fabricate weapons or implements. Even the one feature that is commonly held to determine human agency, the “bulb of percussion,” cannot be considered satisfactory, without collateral evidence of some kind. Flint breaks with what is called a conchoidal fracture, as do many other substances, such as glass. Thus on the face of a flint flake, at the end where the blow was delivered to detach it from the nodule, is seen a lump or bulb, which is usually regarded as evidence of human workmanship. To produce such a bulb it is necessary to deliver a somewhat heavy blow of a peculiar kind at a particular point of a flattened surface; and the operation requires a certain amount of practice. The fulfilment of all the necessary conditions might well be a rare occurrence in nature, and the bulb of percussion has come to be regarded as the hall-mark of human manufacture; but recent investigations have shown that the intervention of man is not necessary and that natural forces frequently produce a similar result. When, therefore, it is a question whether or no a group of rude flints are of human workmanship, evidence of design or purpose in their forms must be established. If this be found, and in addition if a number of flints, all having this character of design, be found together, then and then only is it safe to admit them into the domain of archaeology. There can be no doubt that much time and energy have been wasted, and a number of intelligent workers have been fruitlessly occupied in following up archaeological will-o’-the-wisps, through neglecting this elementary precaution.

Whether or no man produced flint implements before Quaternary times, it would seem to be a necessity that he should have passed through an earlier stage, before arriving at the precision of workmanship and the fixed typesEolithic.found in the old Stone Age deposits known as palaeolithic. It is now claimed that this earlier and ruder stage has actually been discovered in what are known as the Plateau-gravels of Kent, in Belgium, and even in Egypt, and the name of eolithic (ἠὠς, dawn,λίθος, stone) has been bestowed upon them. The controversy as to the human character has been very keen, some alleging that the fractured edges and even the definite and fairly constant types are entirely produced by natural forces. Sir Joseph Prestwich in England, and Alfred Rutot in Belgium, the latter arguing from his own discoveries in that country, have strongly supported the artificial character of the relics. On the other hand it is pointed out that the existence of these implements on the high levels of Kent furnished confirmation of Sir Joseph Prestwich’s theory of the submergence of the district, and that his support was thus somewhat biassed, while the geological conditions in Belgium are not quite comparable with those of the Kent plateau; and the Belgian evidence, whatever it may be worth in itself, is of no avail as corroboration of the Kentish case. It is to be regretted that the conditions are not more convincing, for, as stated above, they agree fairly well with the evolution theory of man’s handiwork, and if they could be accepted, would carry back the evidences to a more remote time when the physical features of Kent were of a very different character. The critics of eoliths have brought forward some facts that at first sight would seem to be of a very damaging nature. It was observed that in the process of cement manufacture the flints that had passed through a rotary machine in which they were violently struck by its teeth or knocked against each other, possessed just those features that were claimed as indisputable proof of man’s handiwork, and that even the forms were the same. These statements have, of course, been met by counter-statements equally forcible, and the matter may still be considered to be in suspense. The great struggle, therefore, is now more closely restricted to the nature of the chipping than as to the quasi-geological question, and if the solution is ever to be found, it will be by means of a closer examination and a better understanding of the difference between intentional and accidental flaking.

On reaching the Palaeolithic period we come to firmer ground and to evidence that is more certain and generally accepted. This evidence is fundamentally geological, inasmuch as the age of the archaeological remains is dependentPalaeolithic.upon that of the beds in which they are found. That they were deposited at the same time is now no longer questioned. The flints are found to have the same colour and surface characteristics as the unworked nodules among which they lie, and are generally rolled and abraded in the same way. This in itself suffices to show that the worked and unworked flints were deposited in their present stratigraphical position at the same time. The remote age of the beds themselves is demonstrated by the presence of bones of animals either now extinct or found only in far distant latitudes, such as the mammoth, reindeer, rhinoceros, &c., and in some cases these bones are found in such relative positions as to prove they were deposited with the flesh still adhering to them, and also that the animal was contemporary with the makers of the flint implements. Evidence of a somewhat different kind is provided for the palaeolithic period by certain caverns that have been discovered in England and on the continent. In these limestone caves palaeolithic man has lived, slept, eaten his food and made his tools and weapons. Much of his handiwork has been left, with the bones of animals on which he lived, scattered upon the floor of the cave, and has been sealed up by the infiltration of lime-charged water, so that the deposit remains, untouched to our own day, below an impermeable bed of stalagmite. In such circumstances there can be no doubt of the contemporaneous character of the remains, natural or artificial, if found on the same level. Moreover, so far as type is a criterion of age, the flint tools found in the cave deposits tend to confirm the date assigned to those of the river-gravels.

It is fairly certain that about the middle of the Tertiary period the northern hemisphere possessed a temperate climate, such that even the polar regions were habitable. But the physical aspect of northern Europe was very different from that of Quaternary times. North of a line drawn roughly from southern England to St Petersburg all was sea. It was during the latter half of the Tertiary period that the continent assumed its present general form, though even in Pleistocene (Quaternary) times England and Ireland formed part of it. The great change of climate from temperate to arctic conditions during the latter half of the Tertiary period has been interpreted in various ways, no one of which is yet universally accepted. There can be little doubt, however, that no single cause was responsible for so complete a change. There may have been some alteration in the relative positions of the earth and the sun, which would conceivably have produced it; but what is practically certain is that the physical geography of northern Europe was affected by considerable difference in level, and it is clear that the raising of mountain ranges and the general elevation of the continent must necessarily have reacted on the climatic conditions. If in the later Tertiary time we find that the Alps, the Carpathians and the Caucasus have come into existence, it is not surprising to find that these huge condensers have brought about a humid condition of the continent to such an extent that this phase has been called the Pluvial Age. The humidity, however, was in some ways only a secondary result of the protrusion of high mountain ranges. The primary cause of the physical conditions that we now find in the valleys and plains was the formation of glaciers. These rivers of ice descending far into the lower levels during the winter months, melted during the summer, causing enormous volumes of water to rush through the valleys and over the plains, carrying with it masses of mud and boulders which were left stranded sometimes at immense distances. The intensity and force of the rivers thus formed would depend upon two factors, first the extent of the watershed, and secondly, the height of the mountains from which the water was derived. The result of increasing cold was that in course of time the northern hemisphere was surmounted by a cap of ice, of immense thickness (about 6000 ft.) in the Scandinavian area and gradually becoming thinner towards the south, but at no time does it seem to have extended quite to the south of England. This is proved by the absence of boulder-clay (glacial mud) in the districts south of London. These arctic conditions were not, however, continuous, but alternated with periods of a much less rigorous temperature during what has been called the Ice Age. Remains both of mammals and plants have been found, under conditions that are held to prove this alternation.

Such being the natural forces at work remodelling the surface of the earth; forces of such gigantic power as to be almost inconceivable in these more placid times, it can easily be understood how, in the course of the many thousands of years before the Quaternary period, when the surface of the globe attained its present aspect, the powerful river-systems of Europe wore their beds deep into the solid rocks. In some cases in Europe the erosive power of the river has worn through its bed to such an extent that the present stream is some hundreds of feet lower than its forerunner in palaeolithic times. From various causes, however, the rivers did not always wear for themselves a deep channel, but spread themselves over a wide area. This seems to have been the case with the Thames near London: the river-bed is not of any great depth, but at various periods it has occupied the space between Clapton on the north-east and Clapham on the south-west. It must not be assumed that the whole of this area of 7 m. or more was filled by the river at any one time, but rather that during the course of the palaeolithic period the river had its bed somewhere between these two limits. For instance, it is probable that at one period the bank of the Thames was at a point nearly midway between the northern and southern limits, where Gray’s Inn Road now stands. It was here that the earliest recorded palaeolithicimplement (now in the British Museum) was found towards the close of the 17th century in association with mammoth bones. But it is safe to say that the Thames was a very much wider and more imposing river in palaeolithic times than it is now, when its average width at London is under 300 yds. As, in the course of ages, it changed its bed and by degrees lessened in size and volume, it would leave, on the terraces formed on its banks, the deposits of brick-earth and gravel brought down by the stream, and it is on these terraces that the relics of palaeolithic man are found, sometimes in great quantities. It will be obvious from the nature of the case that the highest terraces, and those farthest apart, should contain the earliest implements; but it is by no means easy in the present state of the land surface and with our present knowledge, to place the remains in their relative sequence. More accurate observation, and a better understanding of the conditions under which these deposits were made, should solve many such problems. Much light has been thrown upon many points by Worthington Smith, who has excavated with great care two palaeolithic floors at Clapton and at Caddington near Dunstable. The latter discovery was of quite exceptional interest as confirming the geological evidence by that of archaeology. In this case the original level at which palaeolithic man had worked was clearly defined, and was prolific of dark-grey implements, which had evidently been made on the spot, as Smith found that many of the flakes could be replaced on the blocks or cores from which they had been struck by palaeolithic man; there were also the flint hammers that had been used in the operation. Above the floor was a layer of brick-earth, again covered by contorted drift, in which also implements occurred, but of a very different kind from those found below. In place of being sharp and unabraded, and with the refuse flakes accompanying them, they were rolled and disfigured, of an ochreous tint, and evidently had been transported in the drift from a much higher level now no longer existing, as the site where they occurred is the highest in the vicinity, about 500-600 ft. above sea-level. Here then we have a clear case of palaeolithic man being compelled to abandon his working place on the lower level by the descent of the waters containing the products of his own forerunners, probably then very remote. In this case the sequence of the various strata may be considered certain, and the remains thus accurately determined and correlated are naturally of extreme value and importance. But even this does not enable us to diagnose another discovery unless the internal evidence is equally clear and conclusive. One point of importance that may be noted is that the older abraded implements were mostly of the usual drift type, while the more recent ones from the “floor” contained forms more highly developed and elaborated, such as occur in the French caves. Explorations of this kind, carefully conducted in a strictly scientific spirit by men of training and intelligence, are the only means by which real progress will be made in this puzzling branch of archaeology.

Although many problems yet remain to be solved in England, its small area, and the relatively large number of workers, have together sufficed to put the main facts of the earlier stages of man’s existence on a fairly satisfactory basis. In France, owing to the richness of the results, a great number of trained and ardent workers have made equal, if not better, progress. But unfortunately the real scientific spirit is not invariably found. Not so long ago an apparently serious writer in a well-known scientific magazine gave a detailed account of his studies in primitive methods and explained at great length his attempts at the manufacture of flint and stone implements. He found by the processes he adopted that it was much more easy for him to produce a polished implement than one merely flaked. From this fact he seriously argued that a great mistake had been made in the relative ages of the neolithic and palaeolithic periods, and that the former must necessarily be the older of the two. The evidence of geological position and of the mammalian remains accompanying the obviously older flints was entirely disregarded, just as on the other hand it was forgotten that in regard to neolithic remains the proofs were in every way in favour of a relatively modern origin. Such attempts not only bring the serious study of early man into disrepute, but tend to retard the progress of real knowledge and are therefore to be deplored and when possible discouraged.

Caves (q.v.) have been at all periods regarded as something uncanny and mysterious, with perhaps a tinge of the supernatural. In classical times they were associated with semi-divine beings, with oracles, and even with theCave Period.gods themselves, while half the legends of dwarfs and gnomes that run through the folk-lore of medieval and modern Europe are associated with caves. They have been used as shelters or habitations at all times, and in examining them it is fully as necessary to sift the evidence of age as it would be in dealing with the river-gravels. Their exploration in the first instance may well have been due to chance, but it is fairly certain that during the 16th century the search for the horn of the unicorn as an antidote to disease, was responsible for the opening up of a certain number. Among the finds were no doubt the fossil bones of Quaternary animals to which mythical names and imaginary properties were attached, and the popular belief in such amulets naturally gave a great impetus to the search. It is, however, only a little more than a century ago that these investigations took anything like a scientific turn, and even then they had only a palaeontological end in view. The idea that archaeology entered into the matter was not at all realized for some years. The remains of many extinct or migrated animals, such as the hyena, grizzly bear, reindeer and bison, were found in quantities in the now famous cave at Gailenreuth in Franconia; and later, William Buckland explored the equally well-known hyena-cave at Kirkdale in Yorkshire, where he demonstrated that these animals had lived on the spot, feeding on the mammoth, rhinoceros and other creatures that had been their prey. The remains of man, however, had not been found, nor were they even looked for. It was not until Kent’s cavern, near Torquay, was examined by the Rev. J. McEnery, that man was clearly proved to have been contemporary with these extinct beasts. So contrary was this contention to the ideas prevalent in the second quarter of the 19th century, that the pioneer in this work had died (in 1841) before the immense importance of his discovery was admitted. To Godwin Austen in the first place and to W. Pengelley in the second, with the aid of the British Association, was due the vindication of McEnery’s veracity and accuracy.

Several circumstances conspire to give a special interest to Kent’s cavern, and not the least is the fact that the age and appearance of the various strata indicate that it has been the home or the refuge of human beings at all ages even up to medieval times, and perhaps from a period even more remote than is the case elsewhere. In the black mould that formed the uppermost layer were found fragments of medieval pottery, and relatively in close proximity were ancient British and Roman remains as well as relics of the earliest days of metallurgy, in the shape of bronze fragments. The two thousand years or more that may have separated the oldest from the most modern of these later products, is as nothing in comparison with the immense intervals that lie between the earliest of them and the infinitely more remote period when gigantic mammals first inhabited the cave. Attempts have been made from time to time to express in years what the interval must have been: but as the computations have differed by hundreds of thousands of years, according to the method adopted, it is scarcely wise to do more than speculate. Beneath the black mould, containing what may be called the recent remains, was a layer of stalagmite, some feet in thickness; and under this at one place was a great quantity of charcoal, which has been with good reason assumed to show the site of fireplaces. A quantity of implements of palaeolithic type was found, but the main layer at this level consisted of a reddish clay known as cave-earth, and in this deposit were implements both of flint and horn, as well as bones of extinct animals. The flint implements were mostly of the usual river-drift type, but some were of types generally confined to cave-deposits of this period; while the barbed harpoonheads, and more especially a bone needle, were definitely of the cave class, so well represented in the caves of Dordogne. Again, below the cave-earth was abrecciaformed of limestone and sandstone pebbles cemented together by a calcareous paste. In this also were found implements and bones of bears.

The succession of strata indicated above may be taken as typical of the caverns used by palaeolithic man, the breccia and stalagmite flooring being in themselves proof of a very considerable age, while the association in the former, or under the latter, of remains of human handiwork, with bones of extinct animals, may be safely taken to show contemporaneous existence.

Once the mind has fairly grasped the fact that man was living at so remote a time, it is a simple and natural conclusion that he should have provided himself with weapons and tools more or less rudely fashioned from the stones he found ready to his hand. The analogy of the recently extinct Tasmanian is sufficient to show that even the meanest savage is not without such aids. But the caves of France, of the same palaeolithic period, and used by men theoretically in the same stage of culture, bring before us a race of artists of first-rate capacity, who for accuracy of observation, and for skill in indicating the character and peculiarities of the animals around them, have never been surpassed. Such a statement sounds like a contradiction in terms. We are dealing with human beings whose intellect, to judge by their physical characters, should be on a level with that of the Fuegian or the Australian black, and far below that of the Maori or the Sandwich Islander. Yet none of these gentle and relatively cultured brown races produced anything in the nature of art that can in any sense be compared with the masterly drawings or sculptures of the cave-men of France. The best-known of the engravings, that of the mammoth on a piece of ivory, is in the Jardin des Plantes in Paris. It is evidently intended to be nothing more than a sketch, the lines of the finely curved tusks being repeated several times in the desire for accuracy. But the heavy lumbering walk of the ponderous beast, his attitude, and even the character of the hairy hide, are all shown or suggested with a skill and freedom that not only denotes daily familiarity with the thing represented, but a most complete mastery of the art of translating the idea into simple line. This mammoth-drawing is probably the most important and monumental of its class, but there are many others that possess artistic qualities not less remarkable, while they have in addition a grace and beauty of line not less astonishing. One of these, in the British Museum, the head of an ibex-like creature, is outlined with a decision and refinement that can scarcely be surpassed, and many other sketches in horn or stone in the same collection show a keen appreciation of the characteristic features of the different animals as well as a masterly deftness in the handling of the graving-tool. If we are forced to marvel at the graphic skill of the cave-men, their sculptures in the round are on a still higher plane, as may be seen in the figures of reindeer in ivory in the British Museum. While they are not highly finished, they show a complete understanding of the animal’s peculiar forms and contours, which are rendered in a direct, unhesitating way that should betoken a long period of artistic training and an executive power uncommon at any time. These drawings and sculptures have always been appreciated and even regarded as being of a much more advanced style than was to be expected among men who are always classed in the lower grades of culture. But enough stress has not hitherto been laid on the artistic quality of the work, which would be considered fine at any time in the world’s history. This high artistic level was attained by a race of men whom we cannot credit with any great intellectual equipment; men, moreover, who were engaged in a daily struggle for the barest necessaries of life, in a trying climate and surrounded by a fauna whose means of attack and defence were infinitely superior to their own. There are many astonishing problems in archaeology, but none so badly in need of solution. Had the discovery been confined to a single drawing or even to a single site, fraud or a misreading of the conditions might have been alleged, but the case is very different. The drawings and sculptures have been found generally enough in France to demonstrate that such artistic power was fairly common, while the question of the authenticity and period of the discoveries has long since been satisfactorily settled. It is true that the climatic conditions in pleistocene France were more favourable to man than was the case farther north, but even an agreeable climate does not necessarily produce an artistic race; if it were so, the Polynesians would probably be the greatest artists the world has ever seen. The physical remains of palaeolithic man, even when found under unquestionable conditions, are, however, so scanty, that it is unlikely that the important question of the race or races inhabiting central and northern Europe will ever be settled by their means. The evidence at present is in favour of two very different types, one dwarfish and brutal (Canstadt), the other more advanced and noble in physical character (Cro-Magnon). To the latter were due the artistic productions, and until further physical evidence is forthcoming recourse must be had to the most minute examination of the objects themselves and to accurate observation of the conditions under which they are found. So far as our present materials go, these are the only means by which more light may be thrown on the many problems of early man.

In spite of the unquestioned and unquestionable character of palaeolithic discoveries in general, it must not be assumed that there has been an absence of falsification, forgery, and what the French call “mystification”; on the contrary, such attempts to meet the demand have been common enough. Apart from Edward Simpson, who was notorious as “Flint Jack” in the middle of the 19th century, many others, both in England and on the continent of Europe, have devoted themselves to this peculiar industry. Boucher de Perthes tried to conquer the scepticism of some of his friends who doubted the human origin of the Abbeville flints, by unwisely offering his workmen a reward for the discovery of human bones in the same beds. The Moulin Quignon jaw was accordingly produced, and became the subject of much controversy; but the evidence finally showed that it had originally come from elsewhere. The cave drawings also have found their imitators in modern times. One Meillet, a man of education, took a special pleasure in the production of spurious examples, and even published an account of his pretended discoveries. But here, as in all the attempts at imitation of the cave drawings, the modern efforts were betrayed by their poor artistic quality, and a comparison of the new discoveries with the old was generally enough to disclose the forgery. Two drawings on bone of a wolf and a bear, declared to have been found in a cave at Thayingen in Switzerland, were afterwards shown to have been copied from a child’s picture-book. In Switzerland also a brisk trade was carried on some years ago in false antiquities said to come from the Lake-dwellings; and fantastic types of tools and implements were placed on the market. In Italy, too, a lively discussion has taken place of late years over the authenticity of curiously shaped flint implements from the neighbourhood of Verona; while America has provided similar food for discussion in the well-known Lenapé stone and the Calaveras skull. The former bears drawings of the French cave type, while the latter if genuine would carry back the story of man in the American continent before Pliocene times.

An apparent break in the continuity of man’s history in Europe occurs at the end of the palaeolithic period. Attempts have been made to bridge the gap by means of a “mesolithic” period (μέσος, middle); but it wouldMesolithic.not seem probable that the missing links will occur at all events so far north as Britain. We leave palaeolithic man in a cold climate, surrounded by a somewhat mixed fauna that formed his prey. We know him as a hunter and artist, but the remains show that he had no knowledge of pottery till towards the close of the period. Among the humbler arts he practised at least sewing, and lived in caves or took shelter at the base of overhanging rocks; but like the Australian, he frequently camped in the open. His successor of the later Stone Age (neolithic) we find to be a very different character and with verydifferent surroundings. The configuration of the land in which he lived is practically the same as we now see it. The severe arctic conditions with the appropriate fauna had entirely disappeared, and the introduction of new arts must have radically changed his daily life. The most important of these are the training of domestic animals, agriculture, and the development of pottery. What were the burial rites of palaeolithic man we have at present no means of knowing, but for his neolithic successor we know that these were matters of great moment. The abundance of arrowheads of flint indicate the common use of the bow and arrow as a weapon, while the art of weaving marks an immense stride in the direction of comfort and civilization. Of the form and construction of his dwelling we have only a limited knowledge, derived with some uncertainty from the analogy of the dwellings for the dead (barrows) and more certainly from the remains of the villages found erected on piles on the shores of lakes.

A much-debated question arises here that cannot be passed over. The changes just mentioned are not such as would be produced by internal causes alone. Much of the evidence is in favour of neolithic man being an immigrant, coming into northern and central Europe long after palaeolithic man and his characteristic fauna had disappeared. Where did the earlier race go and who are its modern representatives, if any? The answers to this question are many. W. Boyd Dawkins is of opinion that the reindeer was followed by man in its journey to the north after the retreating glaciers, and that the modern representative of palaeolithic man is the Eskimo. His arguments are ingenious but unconvincing; they mainly consist in the similarity of the habits of both races in using harpoons and implements of similar form and make, their power of carving and drawing on bone, the absence of pottery, disregard of the dead, &c. As to the positive evidence, it is almost enough to say that the Eskimo, like the cave-men, used the material nearest to hand that served their purpose, and that nothing is more remarkable than the similarity of primitive weapons used by widely separated peoples; while the negative evidence as to the absence of pottery is of little value; their conditions of life would allow them neither to make it nor keep it. Till recently we had no evidence at all of the treatment of the dead by palaeolithic man, but this is no longer the case; the discoveries in the Grottes de Grimaldi, Monaco, show several methods of burial, near a hearth, or in rude stone cists (see Dr Verneau inL’Anthropologie, xvii. 291). A stronger argument would be furnished if it could be shown that by his physical character the Eskimo is an intruder in his present home, and is unrelated to his neighbours. But this has not yet been done, and the skulls of the Eskimo do not resemble any of those hitherto found in the caves. In fact, what evidence there is on the subject is rather against than in favour of the wanderings northward of the inhabitants of the caves. There are indications, on the other hand, that in the south of France, in the Pyrenees, the reindeer was in existence, with man, at a later period than that of the caves, while the type of skull is that of Cro-Magnon. Here, therefore, it may be that something like a bridging of the gap between palaeolithic and neolithic times may be forthcoming. But it still remains to be found, and for the present we must be content with uncertainty.

The neolithic period has often been loosely called the age of polished stone, from the fact that in no case has a polished or ground stone implement been found in a palaeolithic deposit. The term is not only loose but inaccurate.Neolithic.In the first place, there is no reason why the cave-men should not be found to have polished a stone implement on occasion, for they habitually polished their weapons of bone. Secondly, neolithic man was by no means uniform in his methods; he polished or ground the surfaces of such tools or weapons as would be improved by the process; but to take a common instance, he found that the efficacy of his arrow-point was sufficient when chipped only, and polishing is only occasionally found, as in Ireland. Many other implements also are found in neolithic times with no trace of grinding and yet with every appearance of being complete.

The most trustworthy evidence with regard to this and the succeeding archaeological periods is to be found in the grave-mounds. For the earlier part of the neolithic age, however, these are by no means fruitful of relics. From their shape they are called in England “long barrows” to distinguish them from the round barrows which belong to a succeeding time, though evidence is being accumulated to show that this division is not of universal application. Long barrows are by no means of such frequent occurrence in Britain as the round variety; they are most common in Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Dorset, and occur as far north as Caithness. Some of them contain within the mound a stone chamber, at times with a gallery leading to it, and in the chamber the interment or interments took place. Similar barrows have been found on the continent of Europe, and both in Britain and abroad have one feature in common, viz. that no metal, with possibly the exception of gold, has ever been found in them. This similarity of burial custom, though it may conceivably indicate intercourse, certainly does not prove identity of race, as has been sometimes claimed. The type of skulls found in the interment is clear evidence against such an assumption.

In Britain, the burials were at times by inhumation only, and occasionally a great number of bodies were interred in the same barrow: at others, cremation had preceded burial. Another remarkable feature is that in many instances it is certain from the relative position of the bones of the unburnt burials that the corpse had been allowed to decay before the burial took place. This curious practice is known among many savage tribes of the present day. Its occurrence in Britain has been adduced in favour of the prevalence of cannibalism at this time, and not altogether without reason. While metal is entirely absent in the long barrows (and in fact relics of any kind are very rarely found), it is significant that in the succeeding round barrows also metal occurs but seldom, and then always of the types attributed to the earliest part of the Bronze Age. When, therefore, the mound pottery is of a class that may well be anterior to metal, and no metal is found with the burial, it is not unreasonable to assign such barrows to the Stone Age. A similar argument may be applied to the stone implements, but in the opposite direction. Many stone implements are found either isolated, or perhaps with no other relics that serve to fix their period. The material alone is often considered sufficient evidence of their being before the age of metals; but it is at any rate quite certain that a large number of stone axes, more particularly those with a socket for the handle, belong really to the Bronze Age. This uncertainty makes any account of the neolithic age difficult, unless the material is taken as the main basis.

Neolithic man, like his forerunners, still recognized that flint and allied stones provided the best material for his cutting and piercing implements, though he made use to a great extent of other hard stones that came ready to his hand. The mining of flint was undertaken on a large scale, and great care was taken to get down to the layer containing the best quality. In Norfolk, at Grime’s Graves, and in Sussex, at Cissbury near Worthing, the flint shafts have been carefully explored by William Greenwell, General Pitt-Rivers and others. The system was to sink two shafts some little distance apart and deep enough to reach the desired flint-bed, and the two shafts were then joined by a gallery at the bottom. At Grime’s Graves large numbers of deer’s horns were found, which had evidently been used as picks, as is proved by the marks found in the chalk walls; and the horn had been trimmed for the purpose. Cups of chalk were also found in the galleries and were believed to have been used as lamps. At Cissbury great quantities of unfinished and defective implements were found in the work, as well as horn tools, as in Norfolk. At such factories the primitive appliances correspond very closely with those in use among existing savages. The pebble was used as a hammer or an anvil, and the more delicate flaking was done by pressure with a piece of horn rather than by blows. Naturally enough the number of completed implements found in these factories is small; the finished tools would be bartered at once and carried away from the factory. All theanimal remains found in these pits belong to present geological conditions, thus emphasizing what has been stated above, that the absence of polished implements is no evidence for great age. Many other factories have been found in Britain, in Ireland and on the continent of Europe: at Grovehurst in Kent, at Stourpaine near Blandford, at Whitepark Bay, county Antrim, and in Belgium at Spiennes. Among the North American Indians the method would seem to have been somewhat different. After journeying to the site of a suitable quality of stone, they did not always complete the implements on the spot, but made a number of oval chipped disks of good stone which they carried away and worked up into the required implements at their leisure. These disks bear a strong likeness to some of the ovate implements from the Drift in Europe; in fact, but for the difference of surface condition or patina, they would be identical.

Plate I.

Plate II.

Plate III.

Back to Index Next