-it cannot be a purely political question. The reconstruction of Europe, if it is to be at all permanent, must reach right down to the causes— the most remote-of the present conflict. It is an open secret that politics to-day are as much influenced by economic considerations as they were influenced by family considerations in the XVIII century. The need for the rapidly increasing German people for expansion-for more elbow room-of which the menace to France on her western frontiers, the greed for colonies, the intrigues in Turkey and Persia, and the long and bitter commercial rivalry with England were but outward symptoms, is at the bottom of this war. Their genius for organisation, their advance in science, their domination by a military caste, have made the German people a horror and a nightmare to the civilized world; and prevented this question, which is at bottom of absorbing interest to the whole world from being discussed rationally. It is in the economic aspect that the problem of reconstruction is most difficult, because though the economic causes are at the bottom of the mischief, their proper remedy is likely to run counter to the most cherished axioms in the political world. Thus to take the instance of the principle of Nationality, which may easily be made the basis of the next reconstruction of Europe, as we have seen it is difficult to define Nationality with any clearness. As understood by the politicians and diplomatists in the XIX century, it is surely inadequate to form the basis of a new centre of civilization. On the other hand it is beginning to be admitted, however grudgingly, that economic forces have greater cohesive tendencies than the fancied bonds of race, religion, or language, The fact that Canada tried a few years ago to negotiate a Reciprocity Treaty with the United States, even while she was keeping up protective tariffs against England, is but one of many indications of the bond of union as furnished by the

identity of economic interests. To us in the British Empire this is much more interesting than the political aspect of the war; since not only we do not expect any territorial gains as the result of this war, beyond perhaps a few colonies lying outside the pale of civilization, but the very holding together of this vast fabric of our empire can only be accomplished if identity or harmony of the economic interests of the various component parts is discovered and promoted by the new arrangement.

The attempt at thrashing out a uniform economic policy among the Allies, backed, as in the case of Great Britain, by their colonies and dependencies, suggests that the importance of economic considerations is not unknown to those entrusted with the task of beating the enemy. But it has to be remembered that while purely political reasons may not influence outsiders like the United States into interference in the contest, economic considerations may induce them-force them not to regard this struggle as a local European problem. We have to consider neutral sentiment as .uch, if not indeed more, in an economic reconstruction as in a political one. It is a matter of speculation whether a closer economic alliance between the Allies even after the war would result in a sort of Western European Zollverein, or in preferential treatment among the Allies or in complete free trade. In any case a closer economic union, which has been resolved upon after due considerations of the conflicting interests of the various members of such an alliance, must presuppose that each constituent is allowed to make the most of its own natural or acquired economic advantages. The principle of Nationality-as made definite by the unity of economic conditions-would then become a more convenient, more reliable basis, and the reconstruction of Europe may proceed on lines accepted by the Allies in framing their economic union,

HE

Pre-Historic Archæology of South India is, to most people, a sealed book. Most of the recorded information on the subject is scattered in the out-of-print journals of various learned societies, and is quite inaccessible The late Mr. R. Bruce to the ordinary man. Foote, of the Geological Survey of India, was the first to discover implements of the Early Stone Age in South India (in 1863), and it is but appropriate that the first attempt to summarize the work done during the forty odd years that followed, should be at his hands. His collection was purchased by the Madras Government in 1904, and in his declining years the veteran geologist set himself to the preparation of a descriptive catalogue. The work was retarded by ill-health, and Mr. Foote died in 1912, with the proofThe Catalogue Raisonne reading unfinished.

was published in 1914, and the volume of "Notes" now follows.

The book comprises (a) Introduction (pp. 1-6), (b) General Notes (pp. 7-46), and (c) detailed notices of the 459 sites from which specimens were collected (pp. 47-66). The arrangement by Districts and States provides a series of concise synopses which should be of value to local workers. This is supplemented (pp. 170-197) by 23 additional notes on miscellaneous issues, 65 Plates illustrative of typical artifacts, and a map showing the sites represented in the Collection. Mr. Foote classifies his specimens historically into four periods :

I. Palaeolithic or Early Stone Age.
II. Neolithic or Later Stone Age.
III. Early Iron Age.

IV. Later Iron Age.

* Foote-Collection: Notes on their Ages and Distribution, by R. B. Foote, F.G.S., F.R,A.I., M.V.I. Madras (Government Press) 1916.

The supposed Pre-Palaeolithic or Eolithic Age, the existence of which is disputed by many savants in Western Europe, is not represented in the Collection. Mr. Foote wisely leaves that controversy severely alone. The peculiarities of the Indian sequence are:

(1) That the culture of the later Palaeolithic period, corresponding to the Magdalenian, Solutrian, and Aurignacian phases of Western Europe, is absent; and (2) that the Neolithic Culture appears to pass directly into the Iron Age, without the intervention of a period when Copper or Bronze was the staple material for weapons and implements. The affinities of South Indian palaeoliths are with the Chellean and Acheulean cultures of France, and it is doubtful whether Mousterian influences can here be traced. The evidence for a Magdalenian culture (pp. 11, 118, 191) is too slender to be accepted as proof.

The alleged discontinuity between Palaeolithic and Neolithic Culture in Western Europe is disputed, but in South India the hiatus is too obvious to be questioned. It is incredible that the Neolithic types of implement could be directly evolved from those of the Palaeolithic Period, and the evidence seems to indicate that Palaeolithic Man became extinct before the advent of his Neolithic successors.

The cardinal distinction between the Earlier and Later Stone Ages lies:

siliceous limestone, or a jaspery haematitic pseudo-quartzite. The Neolithic people, on the other hand, used trap rock almost invariably for their axes, and a great variety of stones other than quartzite for domestic utensils, while the "pigmy" flakes of agate, chalcedony and chert are supposed to be exclusively of Neolithic Age. The use of true quartzite by the Neolithic people

of South India is almost unknown.

2. Palaeolithic man made his implements by chipping only, but with the Neolithic people chipping was but the first stage of manufacture, and, before the implement was complete, the rough ridges created by chipping were battered into even contours, and the implement was ground and polished.

It is unfortunate that in India the sequence of cultures cannot be tested by stratigraphical evidence or by the geological evidence of associated fauna and flora, and that no human remains have been found that can be definitely assigned to either the Palaeolithic or Neolithic Age. Some of the palaeoliths were found imbedded in lateritic gravels, the origin of which is a matter for debate, but most of the artifacts are "surface finds." The only criteria for the age of such are : (a) the type of implement, (b) its material, and

(c) its treatment.

In a country where flint is abundant, an unfinished neolith may bear a striking resemblance to a finished palaeolith, but the evidence accumulated by Mr. Foote is, in the case of South India, sufficient for a general acceptance of the line he draws between the Palaeolithic and Neolithic Cultures.

The same cannot be said of his differentiation between the Earlier and Later Iron Ages. The distinction he draws (p. 3) between the two is that the people of the Later Iron Age were acquainted with gold, silver, tin and bronze, whereas

those of the Early Iron Age were not. It would be rash, however, to argue that a find is of the Early Iron Age, because it is not associated with gold, silver, tin and bronze, and Mr. Foote nowhere attempts to apply this test.

He does, however, draw up a tentative scheme for the chronological classification of pottery (pp. 32-34). He distinguishes four ages, (1) Neolithic, (2) "Overlap" of Stone and Iron Ages, (3) Iron Age, (4) Proto-historic, thereby obliterating his distinction between the Early and Later Iron Ages. Of these four ceramic stages, the second is confined to Fort Hill and Face Hill, Bellary, where the transition from Stone to Iron is apparently continuous, and the fourth is confined to one locality in Kistna District, one in Baroda and two in Kathiawar. He surmises that the Neolithic pottery is probably "dull coloured and rough surfaced with but little decoration," while the Iron Age pottery should be distinguished by rich "colours and highly polished surfaces with elaborate and artistic mouldings." A priori this is not improbable, but the specimens on which Mr. Foote bases his deductions are so fragmentary and ill preserved, that they are not likely to be accepted as authoritative or conclusive. Unfortunately Mr. Foote had no opportunity of studying closely the relics unearthed by Mr. A. Rea at Adittanallur in Tinnevelly, and at Perumbair in Chingleput. The cultures of these two localities, each of which is associated with bronze, appear to be distinct, while the Nilgiri finds of the Breeks Collection seem distinct from either. The fact is that little scientific attention has yet been brought to bear on the ceramic antiquities of South India, and the recorded finds are too sporadic to justify generalizations, while the persistency of type, in shape and ornament, surviving in some cases till the present day, weakens seriously the value of inferences based thereon. Mr. Foote has no doubt rightly indicated the

lines on which investigation should run, but his conclusions are probably premature.

Mr. Foote's treatment of the "Distribution of Pre-historic Peoples" is not very convincing. The dispersion of Palaeolithic Culture from France through Central Europe to the Caucasus and the Yenesei, and from Spain through Upper Egypt to Somaliland, the Zambesi and India, is a basal fact of history, but the allusion to the supposed Dravidian migration into India from the North-West is apt to be misleading. Tempting, no doubt, it is to identify the Dravidians either with Palaeolithic or Neolithic races, but Mr. Foote adduces no evidence in support of either hypothesis. The Brahuis are certainly not of the same race as the Dravidian peoples of South India, though they speak a Dravidian language, and it is by no means proved that the Dravidians entered India from the North-West. The precis of the writings of Prof. Heierli and Mr. T. E. Peet are interesting, though irrelevant.

Many other interesting topics are touched on by Mr. Foote, such as the evidence of Megalithic monuments, the Svastika, methods of hafting and shafting, the curious absence of arrow-heads of stone, chank bangles, the use of "neck-rests " like those of Africa, human figures, and the pictorial art and "cinder camps " of Kappagal near Bellary. Mr. Foote's "zeriba" theory of these cinder mounds is not likely to retain the field. The discovery of prepared plinths beneath them, supports the earlier theory of Messrs. Newbold and Sewell, that they are the relics of funerary pyres, dating probably from late Medieval times.

It is unnecessary to discuss in detail the notices of Districts and States, except to express a wish that Mr. Foote had been a little more certain as to the human origin of his palaeolithic evidence from Tanjore, and the neolithic "scraper" from Tinnevelly, and to ask pardon for a little scepticism in regard to the evidence from Madura and Trichinopoly,

faultless. The

The book is by no means arrangement of subject matter is somewhat chaotic. A single subject, instead of being treated comprehensively in one or two paragraphs, is scattered haphazard, under perhaps half a dozen different headings. The supposed "Magdalenian" relics of the Kurnool caves, for instance, are referred to independently on pp. 11, 38, 118 and 191; hafting is dealt with on pp. 10, 19, 63, 86, etc., and so on; for instances could be multiplied ad libitum. To make matters worse, the cross references are inadequate, and the index is not exhaustive. The result is much unnecessary repetition, and much waste of labour in piecing together the scattered notices. It is a pity that the obsolete Mid-Victorian phonetic spelling of place names is so often adhered to, as many of these names are extremely difficult to identify in a modern map, or in a modern work of reference. It would have been better had each plate been provided with a scale, and its figures numbered serially, the descriptive references embodied in pp. 198-225 being placed opposite to the plates to which they relate. Dependence on the Catalogue numbers alone is confusing, as most of them run. to four figures and have sub-numbers too. of the Plates have no descriptive titles at all. Slips in proof correction are not numerous, but "Brahim " for "Brahui" in p. 184 is rather bad. A complete bibliography is a desideratum, though it must be admitted the citations from works of authority are abundant.

Many

Such blemishes, however, are of minor importance, and some of them are inevitable in pioneer work. The study of South Indian Archæology is in its infancy, and the average man is "choked off" for want of a handy summary of the work that has been done. Mr. Foote's work supplies this need, and it is to be hoped it will give a stimulus to more comprehensive and detailed research into the interesting subjects on which it touches,