70 ANTIQUITY and pleasing but unless one is wary, concealing the fact they may be derived from the originals or from old illustrations or photographs, allowable in a secondary but potentially misleading in a primary source. The author encountered difficulties in access to some material, not least as a result of the disastrous Florence floods, and as happens to us all has been overtaken by events, such as the publications of Littauer and Crouwel on cross-bar wheels (1977) and on the ancient Near Eastern evidence as a whole (I 979), and by Cornaggia Castiglioni and Calegari on the Italian wooden disc-wheels (1978). Woytowitsch begins with such wheels, now only surviving for study as plaster casts, and goes on to the antler cheek-pieces of ‘soft-mouthed’ bits from North Italy, probably contemporary, not so much with the Hungarian earlier bronze age examples he cites, as with the Swiss Urnfield series which he does not consider. The Italian metal bits have of course been catalogued by von Hase in an earlier (1969) volume of PBF. The core of the evidence is formed by the iron and bronze elements of chariots which, it is generally agreed, must represent an aspect of the strong orientalizing movements and imports in the Mediterranean beginning in the eighth and seventh centuries BC, side-by-side with the first impact of western Greek trade and subsequent colonization. Here derive the garish decorations of the San Mariano and Monteleone di Spoleto chariots of the sixth century, and to an oriental origin too must be assigned the iron types with close set stud-nails in the seventh, and wider spaced fastening-nails in the sixth century BC, a technological development hardly unconnected with the parallel sequence in Hallstatt C and D north of the Alps. Incidentally, the north Italian wagon-burials such as Sesto Calende and Ca’ Morta, in the Golasecca area, seem to show closer links with transalpine than cisalpine traditions. The catalogue and illustrations include a large number of vehicle representations rather oddly assembled. Some (together with models) are welcome representations of indigenous versions of carts with cross-bar wheels, or racing chariots, but it seems misleading to juxtapose these with chariot scenes from the Egyptianizing Syro-Phoenician imported metalwork of the seventh century, and still more from Attic black-figure vases (including the famous ‘FranFois Vase’ by Ergotimos and Kleitias) from Italian sites. This is like implying that the chariot frieze on the Vix crater illustrates contemporary Celtic vehicle technology. The distinction in Etruscan Italy of the racing chariot from the parade chariot is not made clear, but as Bronson pointed out in 1965 and others have since confirmed, the sport and its specialized light vehicles were of seventh-century Greek origin, and the adoption of racing scenes was due to the popularity of Attic black-figure prototypes in the sixth-thence finding its way to the ‘Situla Art’ at the head of the Adriatic. STUART PIGGOTT C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky & J. A. Sabloff Ancient civilizations: the Near East and Mesoamerica. Menlo Park: Benjamin/ Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., 1979. 350 pp., 136 illustrations, 11 maps. $10.95. P. R. S. Moorey (ed.): The origins of civilization (Wolfson College Lectures). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. 166 pp., 42 pls., 52 figs. A6.95. Charles L. Redman: The rise of civilization. From early farmers to urban society in the Ancient Near East. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co, 1978.368pp., 183 figs. A6.95. Some years ago Kent Flannery expressed a wish to ‘declare the origins of agriculture a bandwagon’, remarking that he had ‘already travelled many thousands of miles on that particular wagon, and yearned to step down and tackle other problems.’ The Origins of Civilization has surely become another such bandwagon, and indeed one on which this reviewer has also been a passenger. One sometimes wonders who is driving. The three books reviewed here are only the most recent in a spate of publications devoted to a subject which has proved a major challenge to processual archaeology and must inevitably attract those concerned with the growth of modern society. However, it must be questioned whether there is a real market for the growing number of books repeating essentially the same-and far too often old-hatinformation. Archaeology in the Near East, for example, and especially the prehistory, has itself proved to be a bandwagon in recent years, and there is much that is new and as yet unpublished. Indeed it is becoming increasingly difficult for any single scholar to keep abreast of recent thinking in the various and complex areas of archaeology relevant to analyses of the types attempted here. The volumes by Redman and by Lamberg-Karlovsky and Sabloff have been written as introductory textbooks. Both have their virtues, are eminently readable and will undoubtedly reach a wide student market. It is unfortunate, perhaps inevitable, that in some respects both rely deliberately on ‘readily available’ and thus out-of-date empirical data. Unfortunately ‘key sites’, often no more than those first excavated, all too frequently prove to be atypical of what they are deemed to represent. The volume edited by Roger Moorey, comprising seven of eight Wolfson Lectures delivered in Oxford in 1978,is certainly the most interesting of the three, despite (? or perhaps because of) a deliberate REVIEWS decision to eschew comment on current hypotheses about the causes of civilization. ‘It was hoped that listeners might assess for themselves as the course proceeded, what it was that “civilized” some societies and not others, and why the process varied so markedly.’ These papers have the advantage of being written by a number of eminent specialists, and the disadvantage of restriction to lecture-length summaries. The lectures themselves fall into three groups, the first two devoted to the emergence of man and his development as hunter, farmer and fisher. Of these two lectures one has been printed elsewhere and is not included in the volume. The other, by Grahame Clark, provides a comprehensive and wide-ranging background to the succeeding area-specific papers: James Mellaart on the Near East, Stuart Piggott on Europe, William Watson on China and Warwick Bray on Mesoamerica. It is no coincidence that each of these four contributors has been concerned specificallywith the growth of urban settlements. But only Piggott and Bray provide any theoretical commentary, and the equation ‘civilized’ = ‘urban’ is nowhere explored. The contributions by Piggott and Watson are especially welcome in providing up-to-date syntheses of material not easily available either to the general reader or the beginning student. Piggott deliberately omits the better-known Aegean and its palace-oriented civilizations, in order to examine the development of agricultural communities and towns in east and eastcentral Europe, and then, as a separate phenomenon, the growth of towns in transalpine Europe in the last few centuries BC, while Watson provides a fascinating commentary on the city in ancient China. Warwick Bray’s excellent summary of the Mesoamerican evidence is both comprehensive and readable, though one cannot help but wonder whether the discontinuity he seeks (and fmds), the ‘suddenjump to a new level of complexky’, is more a factor of archaeological classification than reality. Mellaart’s reconstructions of the plans of the famous Eanna precinct at Warka, long denied us by the excavators, are much to be welcomed, despite some inaccuracy. The volume concludes with a stimulating, if in parts contentious, discourse by Nancy Sandars on the role of religion in some early societies. Her healthy scepticism is only occasionally marred by the repetition of such hackneyed phrases as the ‘terrible Assyrian Empire’ and the ‘neolithic mother-goddess’. The last paper in the volume is a concise and well-illustrated review by David Hawkins of the current state of knowledge about the origin and dissemination of writing in the Near East, including Egypt and the Aegean. It is also one of the most valuable, because the topic is not often discussed, and even more rarely presented with such clarity. 71 Redman’s Rise of civilization deals solely with the Ancient Near East, including a brief section on Egypt. His approach is systemic and ecological. The volume is organized in developmental stages, for which a few key sites are selected and described in detail as case studies. ‘The intention is to combine broad coverage with in-depth treatment of existing empirical evidence and current hypotheses on important irinovations.’ Redman offers a more substantial coverage of the Near East than LambergKarlovsky and Sabloff; his chapters on theory and early agriculture are particularly successful. Indeed this book provides the most balanced general discussion of the origins of agriculture now in print, Especially useful is the incorporation of extensive unpublished information on the important sites of Cayonu, where the author himself worked, and Jarmo. The later chapters, dealing with the origins of urban society, are less satisfactory and far from up-to-date; here an obvious reliance on secondary sources has resulted in a number of contradictory statements, for example with reference to the early roles of Kish and Uruk, and of the ‘assembly’ attested in the earliest texts and of a hypothetical ‘ruling elite.’ Nonetheless, the book as a whole is balanced and sensible. Ancient civilizations is the least satisfactory of the three volumes, but has for the student the added advantage of including Mesoamerica and the Indus Civilization; moreover, the first section on historiography provides a very useful introduction to man’schanging views of his past. Unlike Redman’s approach, which is essentially systemic, the principal focus of this book is ‘culture historical’; the final chapter offers a brief introduction lo recent theoretical thinlung, including some welcome reservations about the application of systems models. The bibliography is (deliberately) less extensive than Redman’s, though even the latter offers few references after about 1974. Since both volumes will undoubtedly serve for some time as basic texts, it may be useful here to note briefly :i few of the more persistent factual errors. Many of these are widespread in the literature, and one can only hope that current preoccupation with hypothesis-testing will lead in future to reexamination of basic data rather than repetition of traditional interpretations. For example, ‘professional armies’ were never characteristic of ancient Mesopotamian society, and the degree to which warfare played a ‘significant role’ in the rise of Sumerian civilization, if any, remains to be established. Nor is the specific association of writing with the temple as opposed to a secular administration anywhere attested (the Uruk IV tablets have no informative context). The sections on geomorphology in both volumes are inadequate and often inaccurate. This is especially unfortunate, since one 72 ANTIQUITY of the most difficult impressions to convey to the beginning student is what the landscape actually looks like and, as any archaeologist knows, an understanding of environmental potential is crucial to comprehension of its exploitation. The authors of both volumes labour under the misapprehensions that northern Mesopotamia (the Assyria of historic times) is ‘hilly’ country, and that its inhabitants were in some way ‘backward’ in not applying the irrigation techniques which contributed so much to the early economic superiority of Sumer (not Sumeria ! pace L-K & S, 101). As anyone acquainted with the area knows, before the advent of modem pumps simple gravity-flow irrigation is possible only on the alluvial plains of the south and on the river flood plain, which north of Hit and Baiji is confined between steep river terraces. Thus statements such as those remarking the lack of evidence for irrigation at Hassuna and Halaf sites or in the ‘piedmont areas’ (R, 96, 190, 194, 231, 252; L-K and S, 100,102) reveal a lack of comprehension of basic geography. Moreover, in Mesopotamia it is water and not land that is limited-and remains so today (pace Redman, 210). It is doubtful that dry farming was ever possible at Sawwan (R, I95), while irrigation ‘by seasonal flooding’, though highly relevant in Egypt, is an impossibility in Babylonia. Indeed a section headed ‘The Ecological Basis: Contrasts and Consistencies’ (L-K & s, 130-1) fails to remark the very significant differences in the regimes of the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates and Indus, which are essential to the understanding of agricultural practices in these areas. Equally to be regretted is Redman’s environmental map (Fig. 2-4): the designation of the Mesopotamian steppe (Jazirah) and the fertile rain-fed plains of Assyria as ‘piedmont’, and the equivalent Syrian steppe as ‘semi-arid highlands’, is grossly misleading, especially since the two regions are indistiguishable on the ground. Southern Iraq is not true desert, even today, and the unirrigated land was (and is) of considerable value for grazing; Euphrates river terraces are hardly the natural habitat of wild goats, nor are there any ‘salt rivers’ (L-K & S, 50, 122). The sites of Mureybet, Abu Hureyra and Maghzaliyah clearly indicate that there is no reason to assume that the earliest farming villages must be sought in the hills or ‘uplands’, nor, with the single exception of Chagha Sefid, a site barely noted in either volume, are there data to support the widely held view that under conditions of ‘stress’ people moved from north to south into ‘unpopulated’ zones (R, 231). Indeed, the evidence from Yarim Tepe I, like that from the later ‘Ubaid settlements, could be construed to argue a movement northwards from the Samarran zone. There is now little support for Jawad’s view, following Gelb, that in northern Mesopotamia there were no early urban centres; certainly Brak was a city of considerable importance at least as early as the fourth millennium (unfortunately we are ignorant of the status of Nineveh at this time), while a number of major centres are attested in the third millennium (pace Redman, 221, 293). At Gawra most Uruk pottery was mt handmade, nor were metal objects rare (L-K & S, 159). Redman’s chronological chart (Fig. 8-1) should be revised in view of the substantial number of radiocarbon determinations that clearly place Susa A later than ‘Ubaid 4, as indeed was Le Breton’s view in I957 (pace p. 252); Warka and Ur were certainly as old as Eridu. The chronological chart (Fig. 2.1) in Lamberg-Karlovsky and Sabloff is also highly inaccurate, with Umm Dabaghiyah, for example, predating PPN-A Jericho; moreover we learn on p. 74 that PPN-A Jericho was abandoned c. 7300 BC, while its defensive wall was constructed a hundred years later! (71). We have no knowledge of the area of any ‘Ubaid settlement at Eridu (R, 247) ; there is no factual basis for the assertion that ‘houses of the Blite clustered around the temple’ at that site, nor indeed have any houses or animal or plant remains been recovered at Tell al’Ubaid itself (L-K & S, 110). In Redman’s book one would like to see the inclusion of the important palaeobotanical data from PPN-A Jericho (77,80-1). Graves were found under more than one building at Sawwan (213, also L-K & S, 99). At Warka ‘Ubaid temples have been found beneath the Anu but not the Eanna precinct ( 2 5 5 ) ; there is no reason to assume that all the Eanna precinct buildings were temples (257), nor were these Late Uruk ‘temples’ rebuilt in the Jamdat Nasr period when the design and conception of the precinct were totally altered (260). ‘Few early attempts’ hardly describes the extensive evidence for writing in Uruk IV, nor is there evidence that single ‘glyphs’ represented owners’ names (260-1). Indeed neither volume makes any reference to the recent theories of Amiet, Brandes and Schmandt-Besserat on the origin of writing. No true ziggurrats are attested in the Uruk period (277). The sungu was never a city-ruler (303) nor has the derivation of the title msi anything to do with en (304); Gilgamesh was en and not msi of Uruk (305). Mesopotamian building inscriptions are often found on clay cones, door-sockets, bricks, etc, but not ‘on buildings’, while Urukagina’s famous reforms were hardly a ‘legal code’ (306). Nor was the purpose of the later ‘codes’ pragmatic (322). Tell Taya is not in central Mesopotamia (307). The number of influential female officials, administrative and religious, attested in the historic periods hardly supports the contention of ‘increased inequality of status’ (321). The alleged distinction between bearded Semite and REVIEWS clean-shaven Sumerian has long been abandoned (310). The plan reproduced in Fig. 9-26 should be attributed to the Old Babylonian period. There are a large number of typographical errors, e.g. terra rosa (35), Elizag (37), Enyan (72-3), Tamarkahn ( I ~ s ) , semetic (257), Tenemos (316), qx for 9000 BC (II~), Bau for Blau (272),etc. Ancient ciwilizutions also has a number of factual errors. Sun-dried mudbrick was not employed at Jarmo (62). That Hassuna, Samarra, Halaf and ’Ubaid do not provide a ‘chronologicalsequence’has long been apparent (94,Fig. 3.1). Sumer was not uninhabited in Halaf times, and we now know that Late Halaf was contemporary with ‘Ubaid 2/3 (100, IW). There is no evidence that any quantity of Halaf pottery was ‘traded to great distances’ ;Halaf sherds from Mesopotamian sites tested by neutron activation and thin section show that a large proportion were of local manufacture, even at sites such as Choga Mami, well south of what was once thought to be the limit of Halaf distribution; moreover, recent data indicate definite regional traditions among both Halaf and ‘Ubaid potters (102-4).In Mesopotamia a distinction must be made between ‘state controlled workers’ and slaves, nor were the former necessarily well-to-do (138,175).E-Anna is the religious precinct and not the goddess! (145, 172). Not all Sumerian temples were reconstructed on the same site (147),as can be seen in the different traditions of the Anu and Eanna precincts at Warka. The presence of Late Uruk colonies on the Upper Euphrates in Syria must cast some doubt on the assertion that ‘authority and centralization’remained limited at this time (147),while the authors appear unaware of the evidence for ‘collective’ authority in Jamdat Nasr/ED I times. Contact between Egypt and Mesopotamia can hardly be described as ‘slight and superficial’, either in Kassite times (Amarna letters) or at the time of Esarhaddon, Assurbanipal and Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Jeremiah 46!) (158). Sargon of Agade’s titles were comparatively modest and reflected little more than the titulary used by later ED kings; it was Naram-Sin who first proclaimed himself ‘King of the Four Quarters’ (162). Tepe Yahya is not the source of most Sumerian chlorite (183))as its excavator should know. In the Indus section no mention is made of textual evidence for ‘Meluhhan’ traders in Sumer. Lagash is in fact Al Hiba (map 3.3); the site designated Lagash is Girsu (Telloh). I have already remarked that no single scholar can now hope to keep up with all the fields of knowledge reflected in these books, and it is easier to criticize than to be right. But many of the errors detailed above, particularly those relating to environment, chronology and society, are fundamentally misleading. Both these textbooks have much to recom- 73 mend them and will no doubt be useful, indeed invaluable, to students. But perhaps it is time to declare a moratorium on further ‘overviews’ until scholars have had time to digest the results of recent research, and certainly until there is something new to be said. We are all in a position that we ought to acknowledge. Too much is unknown, while the cash value of adlditional information has been inflated like the price of butter. But we are in danger of putting the bandwagon of theory in front of the horse of evidence. J O A N OATES P.-M. Duval8c V. Kruta (eds): Les mouvements celtiques d u Ve a u Ier si&cle avant notre &re. Paris: CNHS, 1979. 239 pp., 23 pls., 94 figs. Frs. 185. This volume contains 16 important papers by as many authors, resulting from a colloquium organized by the Ninth International Congress of Pre- and Protohistoric: Sciences in Nice in 1976.The subjectmatter, as the title implies, is that of ‘movements’ of people and things, from the beginning of La T h e until the Roman Conquest, over much of the ancient Celtic world, and so covers topics from historically attested tribal migrations such as that of the Helvetii by Guillaumet, or those leading to the formation of known groups such as the Scordisci by Jovanovic!, to the distribution of technological processes and works of art, with which many papers are concerned. In connexion with the former one might also draw attention to a simultaneously published paper on historically documented migrations in late prehistoric Europe by Timothy Champion in the Stockholm Symposium on Transport Technology and Social Change held last year. Dehn in the present volume, underlining the inevitable complexity of all inferred movements of peoples in prehistory, takes up again the question of transhumance, so difficult to pinpoint but so likely in contexts of pastoralism. Two important areas of the world beyond the Celtic heartland receive welcome treatment, north Italy and Hungary. In the former, Lollini publishes Picene grave-groups containing middle La Tbne swords and scabbards, an interesting example of the adoption by a m alien culture of an important item of military equipment, and north-east Italy plays a large part in Kruta’s definition of a DuchcovMunsingen phase in early La T h e . His important contribution should be taken together with his earlier paper :in Studi Etruschi for 1978,persuasively arguing for a ‘Celto-Italic’ origin for the so-called Waldalgesheiim style as a part of the continuous transmission of ideas, techniques and styles northwards across the Alps which had begun in early Hallstatt times. The papers of Szab6, Petres and