Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T09:49:12.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Invasion, Diffusion, Evolution?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

William Y. Adams
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Antiquity , Volume 42 , Issue 167 , September 1968 , pp. 194 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* The only important difference between the formulation of 1909 and that which is outlined here was in its inclusion of Ptolemaic-Roman instead of Meroitic, which is not found in the extreme north of Lower Nubia. The dates given here are also those which are most generally accepted today rather than those which were proposed by Reisner in 1909.

* However, it would appear that both the Assyrians and the Mongols specifically exempted various classes of artisans, possibly including potters, from the general destruction which followed their conquests. This might have led to a continuity of pottery manufacture even under circumstances of wholesale population change in some places. See M. Prawdin, The Mongol Empire, 175, 191, and G. Rawlinson, Seven Great Monarchies, 276–7.