________________
54
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[MARCH, 1907.
to note the scale of his photographs, but in the Progress Report of Panjab and U. P. Circle for 1903-4, p. 21, the dimensions of a Pariâr implement in photograph No. 114, now reproduced, are stated to be 6 by 8 inches. This object must be the round-headed shouldered celt shown in the Plate, and the scale of the photograph, consequently, is approximately one-fourth of the originals.
In my previous paper (p. 243; 15 of reprint) I described a fine harpoon-head, presented by Sir Alexander Cunningham to the collections now in the National Museum, Dublin, and said to have been found somewhere in India. This weapon has four teeth, not recurved barbs, on each side below the blade, and the loop on one side of the tang, through which the thong attaching the head to the shaft was passed, is formed by the legs and body of a rudelyexecuted standing animal. The general appearance of this object, which is apparently made of bronze, not copper, is more modern than that of the copper implements from Northern India. By the kindness of Mr. George Coffey, Curator of Antiquities in the Dublin Museum, I am now able to present a drawing of this unique implement, prepared by a member of his staff (Plate VII.). The implement may be, as I supposed in my previous paper, less ancient than the copper articles from Northern India and Gungeria, but, even if that be the case, it certainly dates from a period of very remote antiquity, and is characteristically Indian in
form.
I conclude by quoting miscellaneous observations with which I have been favoured by correspondents interested in my previous paper. Canon Greenwell, the veteran archaeologist, writes: I did not know that so many [copper implements ] had been found in India. It is evident that there never was a bronze cultivation there. Indeed it cannot be said that there was ever any real development of a bronze cultivation, except in Western Europe. Assyria and Egypt certainly did not possess one; nor can Greece, the Islands, or Asia Minor be said to have brought it to any high pitch, though there are splendid specimens, such as the Mykenae blades. Still there is nothing like the fine swords, spear-heads, etc., so abundant in the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Switzerland, and Italy. Hungary developed it certainly; but further east and south it never reached to any height, nor have many bronze weapons, etc., been found in those countries. Spain, too, is very poorly represented, which, as it had much traffic with the Eastern Mediterranean, seems to point to the bronze culture not having come through that channel. The Eastern origin of bronze and its development must be given up; and, so far as we have evidence at present, somewhere about the head waters of the Danube seems to be the most probable place of birth. But we want many more facts before any safe conclusion can be come to.' These weighty observatious raise a big question which I am not prepared to discuss at present, but I may be permitted to feel some satisfaction at having had the opportunity of communicating to the scientific world a considerable body of facts to help in the final solution of the problems of the origin and extent of the so-called Bronze Age. Canon Greenwell is of opinion that the Dowie dagger or sword! is certainly prehistoric, and observes that the handle has something in common with the ordinary bronze sword.' He also thinks, and rightly, that the Norham harpoon was brought to England in modern times, probably by some sailor. He knows of several similar finds; Carib stone-axes and North American arrow-points have occurred in England,' and the way in which they came has been traced.
L
Professor Ridgeway of Cambridge alludes to Major Sikes' 'copper (for they can hardly be called bronze) axes, vessels, and curious rods with a carved end' from Southern Persia, which have been described by Canon Greenwell in the Archeologia, and were discussed at the York meeting of the British Association. Professor Ridgeway is inclined to think that these objects are of comparatively late date, the first century B, C., or even the first century A. D.
1 Ante, Vol. XXXIV., p. 248, and reprint of the paper, p. 15, with figure.
