speak of Early, Middle and Late Neolithic, and English
prehistorians are following their lead. A similar tripartite
division of the Bronze Age has long been current for cis-
Alpine Europe and for Palestine-Syria, while in Crete, Greece, the Cyclades and Cyprus the term "Bronze Age"
has been replaced by "Minoan", "Helladic", "Cycladic"
and "Cypriote" respectively. It might indeed be better to
drop the "ages" altogether and denote the successive culture periods in each province by consecutive numerals.
The ideal, of course, would be to correlate the several
local series by the archaeological means adumbrated on
page 38 so that the whole of prehistory should be covered
by a single scheme of numbered divisions. It is more
likely to be possible to translate the several relative dates
into absolute dates with the aid of physics and astronomy!
| CHILDE, op. cit.|
| CLARK J. G. D., Archaeology and Society ( London, 1939). Idem., Prehistoric Europe: the Economic Basis ( London, 1953).|
| SOLLAS W. J., Ancient Hunters and Their Modern Representatives ( London, 1921).|
| DANIEL G. E., A Hundred Years of Archaeology ( London, 1950).|
| CHILDE V. G., "The Constitution of Archaeology as a
Science," in Ashworth-Underwood (ed.), Science, Medicine, History ( London, 1953).|