Uruk is the ancient name of the great ruin-field of Warka, which is situated near the station of El Khidr on the Irak railway, about 20 kilometres north of the Euphrates. It is now in the heart of a desert region almost exactly in the middle of the land of Sumer (the Shinar of the Old Testament).

This statement, made by Curajod some years ago during the introduction to a course of lectures at the Louvre, is definitely provocative, for, however true it may be and however much we can learn from a study of ornamental forms and systems of decoration with regard to trade and intercourse, it has in general proved extremely difficult to correlate the movements of designs with those of definite groups of people, still more with those of definite races. We can, for instance, assert quite definitely that the neolithic pottery of China is closely related to that of the black-earth region of south Russia, but we find it by no means easy to associate the invention or transportation of this pottery with any particular group of peoples, and we cannot even say for certain that the fact that we find it in two so far separated regions can be regarded as proof of any very considerable racial migration. Such a migration does, indeed, seem the most satisfactory way in which to explain the relationship, but it can also quite satisfactorily be accounted for by the conquest of one region by a small minority from the other, or of both by a small minority from some common centre, who imposed the imported style on the new possession.

Few places in the world have given rise to more fantastic speculation than this volcanic island, 70 square miles in area, lying in the Pacific Ocean, lat. 27° 10′ s., long. 109° 20′ w. Actually the so-called ‘mysteries of Easter Island’, or rather the explanations which have been offered, are not the work of trained men of science. It is natural that the huge statues, standing erect as they do in a naked landscape against a background of black and yellow, should have appealed to the poetical imagination. But those who wish to face with candour the problems presented by certain parts of the world may well be annoyed when the poets’ lyrical love of mystery becomes the starting-point of speculation. The best students of Easter Island have always told us that it was Polynesian and could only be explained by Polynesia. The evidence that we have now obtained is merely an addition to what was already a formidable pile. Nevertheless we expect that before long others will come forward again with tales of a lost continent of Lemuria, submerged beneath the waters of the Pacific; and that Easter Island is one of its peaks, peopled with Lemurian idols!

Inquiry immediately makes it clear that man must first have come to know iron through meteorites. Except for the great masses at Ovifak in Greenland, which are outside the question, iron from earthly sources is not known to occur in the native state. It does, however, occur in metallic form in meteorites (FIG. 2) and is the only metal to do so. In this form it may be found in solid lumps of metal weighing as much as 50 tons (Bacubirito), 36½ tons (Ahnighito), or 15⅔ tons (Chupaderos). But of course most of it occurs in much more manageable sizes—in pieces as large as a man’s head, a hen's egg, a pea, or only as dust. But all meteorites are not solid iron, Very many are a mixture of iron and stone (FIGS. 1, 3) or what is to all intents and purposes merely stone (FIG. 4), and so useless to man as a source of iron. All meteorites fall into one of these three classes.

The principal questions concerning the origin and chronology of Anglo-Saxon sculpture are still awaiting their final settlement. As there is so little external evidence for dating the monuments, it seems probable that only such a method as that so successfully adopted by Mlle. Henry in her book on Irish sculpture can offer a useful approach to the problems they raise. This method implies a separate analysis of each decorative element, research as to its origin, and a comparison wherever possible of its various evolutionary stages with better dated examples in other arts or other countries. The arrangement of the different motives in series can be collated by the evidence offered when they occur on the same monument, and by this means at least approximate dates for single monuments can be obtained.

In connexion with the publication of the report on the neolithic settlement at Koln-Lindenthal I undertook, in the autumn of 1933, with the support of the Notgemeinschaft der deutschen Wissenschaft, two months’ exploration in Hungary, Rumania and Jugoslavia. Apart from museum researches in prehistory the chief object of this journey was to study the building methods of the primitive peasant cultures in these countries. In compiling the report on the ‘band keramik’ settlement at Koln-Lindenthal it was found necessary, in order to elucidate many of the finds, to compare them with ethnographic material from settlements peopled by primitive peasants in modern Europe. This method proved no less helpful than when employed earlier by Oelmann, Menghinl and others in dealing with other prehistoric studies. Prehistoric cultures invariably comprise objects the use of which can only be ascertained by comparison with cognate ethnographic or cultural material. For, owing to the conservative character of the peasant, modern primitive peasant cultures have retained certain structures and institutions which are derived, without a doubt, from archaic, even neolithic prototypes. Comparison of modern material with our prehistoric finds by no means postulates a direct historic connexion between the two, especially when the objects compared are widely separated in place, culture, nationality and race. Rather is ethnography called in to furnish a sound basis for assumptions about our finds by relating them to similar phenomena of modern times.