No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2015
In the spring of 1935 I was commissioned by the Trustees of the British Museum to examine the possibilities of excavation in North Syria. The object which I had in view was the discovery of any links that might exist between the civilisation of Minoan Crete and that of the Asian mainland, and to a large extent therefore the search was conditioned by the geographical nature of the country. If such connexion existed it would require trade-routes, and it was only along those that material evidence of inter-communication could be found; therefore the first requisite was a harbour as a terminus for the oversea traffic and easy communications between the harbour and the interior, i.e., communications not merely with the immediate hinterland, but also with the known cultural centres of the Near East. By the latter consideration the southern coast sites were ruled out; Palestine was never other than a poor country; South Syria was not likely to be profitable, for, in spite of its importance, Damascus is difficult of access from the sea, and from it the caravan route to Mesopotamia has to make the big detour round the north end of the Syrian desert.
1 Tripoli–Homs–Damascus is the best route, only the latter part of it being at all difficult; but political conditions were not always favourable for through traffic.
2 On the French maps the mound is named Marouche and the tiny hamlet on its eastern end is called Atchana; Marouche is the name of a some-what larger village half a mile away. Local use is divided between the two names, but on the whole Atchana seems the more generally employed.
3 Our permit extended only to the making of sondages.
4 See Petrie, Tools and Weapons, Pl. XXXIII. D.4.
5 Royal Tombs, Pl. 154b.
6 Speiser, in The Museum Journal, Philadelphia, xxiiiGoogle Scholar, pl. LXI, no. 3.