The Lake-Dwellings of Europe
Being the Rhind Lectures in Archæology for 1888
9781465624536
213 pages
Library of Alexandria
Overview
The investigations of geologists in the early part of this century, culminating in the publication of Sir Charles Lyell's "Principles of Geology," not only upset current theories regarding the past history of our globe, but also revolutionised the very formulæ on which these theories were founded. The influence of this drastic clearance of antiquated machinery in geology soon extended to the collateral sciences, and one of the first to benefit from the improved methods was archæology. The first great application of scientific methods to prehistoric researches was made in the north of Europe. The Scandinavian savants, in attempting to pry into the early history of their people, found so little reliable information in their sagas and other mythological fables, that they cast them altogether aside as useless or misleading. Struck with the elegance and beauty of the stone weapons and implements so profusely scattered over the land, they seized the idea, occasionally previously mooted by writers in other countries, but hitherto never seriously considered, that there was a time when people were entirely ignorant of the use of metals, and, in the prosecution of their social industries, had to depend exclusively on such tools as could be manufactured out of stone, horn, wood, etc. To this idea they soon afterwards linked another, which experience has also shown to be founded on accurate observation, viz. that their earliest metal objects were made from a nearly uniform compound of copper and tin, known as bronze. Iron, it was maintained, was not known in the country for several centuries afterwards; but, on the other hand, when it became known, it gradually superseded bronze in the manufacture of all cutting implements and weapons, on account of its superior qualities for such purposes. These simple observations in the hands of the Scandinavian scientists supplied the essential elements of a new system of classification, which has since become so familiar all over the world as the three ages of Stone, Bronze and Iron. Its adoption by Dr. Thomsen, in 1830, as the basis of arranging the prehistoric materials in the Museum of Northern Antiquities at Copenhagen, and, a few years later, in the Museums of Lund and Stockholm, marks the commencement of a new era in the history of prehistoric archæology. Other nations were not slow in following in the footsteps of the northern savants, and to such an extent was this new departure carried that for a time at least, all antiquarian objects were classified as belonging to one or other of the so-called ages, on the mere knowledge of their composition. So fascinating was the spell of this new doctrine, that it was some time before even experienced archæologists could see the fallacy of adhering rigidly to such a method of arranging objects; as if, the instant a bronze or an iron implement became known, the manufacture of its analogues in the inferior materials there and then ceased for ever. While, therefore, conceding that the chronological sequence of the three ages, as determined in Scandinavia, is generally correct, and holds good also for European countries, I consider it radically wrong to suppose that the respective epochs indicated by these successive stages of civilisation, especially in districts widely separated, are identical in point of time. Many local circumstances in a country, such as the poverty of the people, their isolation and distance from commercial highways, etc., have often so contributed to the persistency of customs and usages, elsewhere become obsolete and entirely superseded, that a chronological comparison of its progress in civilisation, as defined by the three ages, becomes perplexing, if not misleading, when applied to other countries. The question resolves itself, therefore, into this: that each well-defined archæological or geographical area must ascertain the chronological sequence and duration of these ages for itself.
