types, sometimes composed into the beautiful necklaces found in Enkomi t. 67, 79, 93. (B. M. C: J 578-581).

Silver is also common. Beside the types of Late Cypriote I are found finger-rings with expanding top and oval bezel (E. t. 93), ear-rings with soldered globule (E. t. 93), with tapering ends. (E. t. 86); bracelets (E. t. 97) and pins with eyelet (E. t. 19, 92). Moreover silver-vases: bowls (E. t. 66) and cups (E. t. 92) appear. Fragments of silver-vases, however, have been found already in Middle Cypriote.

Gems of carnelian are rather common; beads of agate (E. t. 95), amber (E. t. 27, 67, 86), and lapis lazuli are more rare. Seals (E. t. 84, 86) and cylinders (K. t. 11, 26; E. t. 12, 66, 67, 84, 93) continue from Late Cypriote I; scarabs appear for the first time.

The faience beads are of the same type as in Late Cypriote I; now also vases appear: bowls, cups, plates, stirrup-jugs, flasks and boxes (E. t. 12, 19, 47, 48, 56, 64, 66, 69, 79, 87, 88, 91). The master-pieces of this faience industry, are the rhyta in shape of a ram, a horse and a female figure (E. t. 19, 86, 88). Noteworthy are also the lion-figure and the duck-head (E. t. 88, 53).

Glass objects occur for the first time in this period: beads (E. t. 88), bottles (E. t. 12, 27, 47, 66, 88) and flasks (A., t. 205 c).

Handles, rods, and discs of bone (E. t. 32, 42, 47, 51, 56, 79; K. t. 26, 50, 81) are represented by the same types as those of Late Cypriote I; besides volute-shaped pendants (E. t. 86) tubes and alabastra (E. t. 51, 85, 86, 91).

The stone-implements of Late Cypriote I continue: mace-heads, whet-stone, spindle-whorls etc. (E. t. 84, 88; K. t. 11, 26, 85, 100, 104, A. t. 205 c) Common is the mortar on three feet. Vases, both of steatite, limestone and alabaster are current (E. t. 35, 53, 59, 67, 91), but many of the stone-vases are unfortunately without statement of find.

The terracottas, both the native and Mycenaean idols and figurines, follow the same chronological scheme as the pottery-fabrics to which they belong.

In Late Cypriote III gold is not so common as in Late Cypriote II but on the other hand occurs more frequently than in Late Cypriote I. The types are mainly those of Late Cypriote II: finger-rings with expanding top (E. t. 24), double-hoop with oval bezel (E. t. 75), convex-flat hoop of spiral-coil (E. t. 76); ear-rings with plain over

lapping ends (E. t. 75), grooved twisted band (E. t. 75) spiral-coils (E. t. 60), and ear-rings with bucranium pendant (E. t. 24, 38, 58, 61, 75). A new type is the leech-shaped ear-ring, characteristic of this period (E. t. 16, 24, 61, 75). Most common of all the gold-works is the strip (E. t. 2, 15, 24, 45, 58, 61, 73, 75). Although gold is rather common, the types however are few and simple as well as the embossed ornaments of the strips: bulls' heads, rams' heads, and rosettes in rows are rendered in a conventionalized and poor style. A quite new and characteristic ornament is the volutes with palmettes (E. t. 45) and bow-spirals arranged as a diamond (E. t. 15, 73), but on the whole the gold industry is retrograding.

Silver is rare, it is represented only by some spirals found in Enkomi t. 98.

Seals and cylinders continue (E. t. 2, 24, 45, 74, 75), but the rich faience industry of Late Cypriote II is retrograding; a ribbed bowl was found in tomb 2, a flask in tomb 45 and a jar in tomb 61. In compensation specimens of a most remarkable ivory industry are found: all the beautiful figured ivory-carvings, culminating in the drawing-box with the hunting-scenes, are found in tombs 16, 17, 24, 58, 73 and 75, and belong therefore to this period or in a certain degree (tomb 17) possibly to the latest stage of Late Cypriote II. If Late Cypriote II is the "gold period" of the Cypriote prehistory Late Cypriote III may be called its "ivory period".

VII. FOREIGN RELATIONS.

The question of the relations of the prehistoric cultures one to another, their mutual influence, and the degree and variety of such influences, is one of the most difficult problems of the prehistorian. It is difficult because uncertainty may prevail as to the proper interpretation of the material, since fixed principles are lacking. The material is naturally all that which is found in the graves and settlements of the epoch under investigation. Further, it is natural to compare the material with that of circumjacent cultures. On the basis of similarities or agreements, conclusions are drawn as to their relations and reciprocal influence. Thus far all goes well, but now arises the great difficulty: the material is heterogenous, and by no means of like value for the question concerned.

It is therefore necessary to establish which material furnishes the most positive and clear proof that there exist relations between the cultures in question; moreover, which characteristics of the particular material must be regarded as more decisive than others; or if possibly certain characteristics exist which must be considered useless as proof in this case.

But the problem is critically to differentiate between not only the degrees and varieties of the material's characteristics, but also the degrees and varieties of the relations and the influences arising from them; i. e., it must be made clear how the material in every case should be interpreted; whether it signifies direct or indirect relations, commercial intercourse, immigration or emigration, and the like.

These difficulties have naturally been perceived, and Prof. Martin P:son Nilsson has very aptly said, in referring to the analogous difficulties of religious historians in the question of the

1 Den grekiska religionens historia, Stockholm 1921, p. 6.

Cretan-Mycenaean religion, that it is a picture-book without text. But it has not been equally easy to attain agreement on the principles which should be followed. Writings of a loose and unreliable nature have appeared in this field, and very often an investigator reasons in vague terms over similarities and traces of influences without approaching any closer to the solution of the problem, since he has not properly appraised the principles which in his opinion he should follow, and therefore does not know how much or how little bearing each portion of the material has upon the proof sought.

It is now acknowledged among archaeologists that pottery, above all other things, constitutes the most positive and sensitive gauge of the characteristics and mutual relations of different cultures. 1 The pottery is fragile and of little value; it is therefore unsuitable as an exchange-article and is not carried too far from the place of manufacture: it proves the closest and direct relations. Whole and precious things often pass from hand to hand: in themselves consequently they only give evidence of indirect relations, but on the other hand they may supplement the evidence given by the pottery. Not only for the chronology but also for the determination of the foreign relations the pottery is therefore the decisive factor. As Frankfort points out, however, it is only the shapes and decorations of the pottery that are of value to the comparative prehistorian; since it is in the shapes and decorations that the peculiar nature of each civilisation finds its adequate expression. But even here a further limitation must be placed. The mere simple and less composite the shapes and decorations, the less valuable do they become as proof; the originally similar requirements have called forth the originally similar simple shapes and ornaments. At first locally differentiated requirements have given rise to locally differentiated peculiarities; and only gradually have the culturally limited types been developed. It is thus necessary to distinguish between, and make use of as proof, only those shapes and ornaments which are culturally limited, since only these can show cultural affinity. Such a treatment of the material is admittedly difficult, and can only gradually be carried out in a empirical manner, in which ethnographic parallels may serve as aids. But even with the material in this form it is difficult to draw direct conclusions. One cannot

3

1 Myres: The Cambridge Ancient History, Cambridge 1923, p. 69 sqq. 2 Frankfort: Mesopotamia, Syria, and Egypt, p. 5 sqq.

3 Op. cit. p. 3.