As we have seen in some earlier chapters, distribution of certain types
of bronze implements may be taken as evidence of trade, and we have
to consider whether it was some form of commerce which carried the
leaf-shaped swords to Ireland, Finland, Podolia and Egypt, or whether
this wide distribution betokens some other form of movement. Before
the days of fairly large ships and highly organised industry it is
not uncommon to find implements, whether of flint or obsidian, copper
or bronze, carried from country to country, without apparently any
general movement of the population. On the other hand, when pottery
and heavier or more easily damaged goods pass from one centre to
another, it usually betokens migration. We have seen how this was so
when the beakers were carried from Bohemia towards Jutland and Britain.
Of course Roman pottery was shipped extensively for trade purposes,
as were red figure vases and other types of Greek ceramic wares. The
same is true, though to a less extent, of Mycenean and some Minoan
wares, for the Ægean traders exported oil and wine. But such export of
pottery betokens a relatively high civilisation and a well-organised
commerce. Under more primitive conditions we may, I think, postulate
that where metal implements or small cult objects alone were carried,
these are evidence only of trade, while when pottery is found, as it
were, on the move, this indicates a movement of the potters, hence a
migration of people. When pottery and weapons are both found moving
together, especially if the weapons are of a more advanced type than
those hitherto found in the land into which they are being introduced,
we may suspect, if indeed we cannot be sure, that we are dealing with a
hostile invasion and the arrival of conquerors.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account