I do not think, however, that these facts are necessarily fatal to the hypothesis. In the first instance it is probable that gold and amber were the objects of search, and these were probably to a large extent exported. For a long time metal implements must have been rare in these regions, and the people might well have hesitated to bury them with their dead. The tools of metal were modern and new-fangled, while burial customs are singularly conservative, as we can see at any English funeral. For centuries and millennia it had been customary to bury with the corpse weapons of stone for use in the next world; what kind of a reception would the deceased have had on his arrival with a metal instrument? It would have been a great risk, which was seldom if ever taken. In matters of burial and religion, which are in fact one, the older course is safer, and so these people, even after metal was known, continued to bury stone implements with their dead, just as Joshua circumcised the Israelites with flint knives.[142] The temples of Malta, too, were erected without the use of metal tools, as was Solomon’s temple,[143] and it is probable that while this cult lasted no metal object might be taken within the shrine. It was only after Hal Tarxien had been deserted, and its floor covered with three feet or more of dust, that traders in bronze, or perhaps pirates, who knew not the ancient cult, ventured to bury their treasure in the desolated sanctuary.
In a recent paper Mr. Thurlow Leeds has suggested that the dolmen originated in the Iberian peninsula, in the basin of the Tagus, and thence spread throughout west Europe.[144] The first type he believes to have been polygonal with a short gallery of approach, lined with large stones, and this gallery seems, from his plans, to have been somewhat in the nature of an antechamber. He further shows that such primitive dolmens are derived from cave tombs, found in the neighbouring region, and in these caves the antechamber seems more apparent. More recently[145] he has compared these early dolmens with certain rock-cut tombs at Castellucio near Syracuse, though, if I understand him aright, he would derive the Sicilian tombs from those in Portugal. Taking all the facts into consideration it seems more likely that the Iberian caves and dolmens are derived from the rock-cut tombs of south-east Sicily.
As to the date of this trade we can say little with certainty at present. We have seen that objects have been found in Spain which seem to point to a connection with Hissarlik II. In the temple of Hal Tarxien in Malta were found certain carved stones with a double spiral ornament[146], which exactly resemble some in the Syracuse museum, which had closed some of the rock-cut tombs near that city.[147] These tombs have been relegated by Signor Orsi to the period he calls Siculan I., and to this period belong the rock-cut tombs at Castellucio, in one of which was found several pieces of carved ivory, which closely resemble a piece found in Hissarlik II[148]. This city was founded about 2500 B.C., or perhaps some centuries earlier, and seems to have been sacked about 2225 B.C.[149] The trade then which we are discussing must have taken place during the latter half of the third millennium B.C., and in the light of the Babylonian tablet already quoted may well have begun some centuries earlier. How soon the trade and the megalith cult passed on from Spain to Brittany and thence to Ireland and the Baltic is uncertain, though it becomes difficult to fit in all the successive cultures unless we postulate that megalithic monuments were known in Denmark and the south of Sweden as early as 2400 or 2500 B.C.[150]; in Brittany a still earlier date seems to be needed. We may then suggest tentatively that the Atlantic trade began before the close of the first half of the third millennium.
All this seems to indicate that the rock-cut tomb with an antechamber, the fore-runner of the dolmen, came from Asia; the antechamber also occurs in the Egyptian mastaba. Professor Elliot Smith believes that this structure, and the use of the antechamber, developed in Egypt,[151] but of this I do not feel confident. It may well have been introduced into that land from the north-east by his Giza folk. If these may be identified, as I think they may, with Newberry’s people, who introduced wheat and the second pre-dynastic culture, we must postulate the use of rock-cut tombs with antechambers in Syria before 4000 B.C. Rock-cut tombs and dolmens, dating from before and just after the discovery of metal, are not uncommon in some parts of this region.[152]
Some years ago Professor Fleure was engaged in a detailed survey of the physical characters of the present inhabitants of Wales, and the results of this inquiry were published in 1916.[153] Among the many types noted was one which is of special interest in this connection. He describes it as: “powerfully built, often intensely dark, broad-headed, broad-faced, strong and square jawed men characteristic of the Ardudwy coast, the south Glamorgan coast, the Newquay district (Cardiganshire), Pencaer in north Pembrokeshire, and other places.”[154] He states in another place; “We found our dark, stalwart, broad-headed men on certain coastal patches, often curiously associated with megaliths in Wales.”[155] Later on he states that a similar type has been noted in Ireland, about Wicklow, in South Devon, and perhaps Cornwall, in the gulf of Saint Brieuc, around Narbonne, in the Asturias and around Oviedo, on the Andalusian coast from Motril to Moguer, in the gulf of Salerno and thence past the gulf of Taranto to Bari, on the Adriatic.[156]
It will thus be seen that this type appears to occur in just those regions in which megaliths and traces of early mining have been found. The inference Fleure has drawn is that in some way these people were connected with the ancient trade we have been discussing.[157] Though I cannot find that he has published the fact, Fleure has told me that he has noted the type in many of our commercial centres, especially in sea-port towns. It is not uncommon in Liverpool, especially in shipping circles.
Some years previous to the publication of Fleure’s paper I had noted in Athens, in the restaurant at which I usually lunched, a type which I was unable to place among those described by Ripley. I noted, too, that they looked prosperous and were evidently well-off. Early in 1914 I noted the same type in Alexandria, especially common among the successful Greek cotton merchants. Both these occurrences puzzled me until in 1916 Fleure’s paper seemed to offer an explanation. I then remembered having noted the same type in Venice and Florence, and among the portraits in both those cities of successful merchants of the renaissance; it also occurred to me that the type could often be seen in London, especially in the city.
When it became clear that here was a type, not recognised or described by any previous anthropologist, and one, moreover, with a rather unusual distribution, it was felt that it should receive a name, which should identify it neither with any people past or present, nor with any language, for such equations would inevitably lead to confusion, nor with any place or country, for its place of origin was uncertain. Since the distribution of the type seemed to be in maritime trading centres, or else in those areas which were connected with ancient mining or trade, it was felt that this type must have been associated with these enterprises. Taking therefore a name, commonly used in America and in our colonies for those who go out to search for gold or other precious metals, we decided to term them “Prospectors,” and by this name they will now be called.