« הקודםהמשך »
of history ; on this principle archæology might be termed the “ foot and head” of history. A rough distinction between the provinces of the two sciences may, I think, be expressed by saying that while history deals with what men have done, archæology has to do rather with what they have made. I am aware that the word “made ” does not properly include one object of archæological study, viz., manners and customs. Still, as these are inferred from, or connected with the use of, something external, the distinction between “made ” and “ done may be accepted as nearly and fairly if not absolutely correct. The knowledge of men's physical, visible, tangible productions, and his use of them, is a wonderful aid to the study of what he has achieved, or failed to achieve, in action; the series of facts which are steps in his progress and development—or sometimes his retrogression and degradation—from age to age. An acquaintance with the art-productions and manufactures, the war-weapons, the tools, the agricultural implements, the road-making, the architecture, the houses, the household furniture, the dress, and finally the burial-places of the men of past ages, leads to conclusions which are of the highest value in dealing with historical records. Schliemann's researches at Troy and Mykenæ, for instance, have thrown new light upon Homer and the history of Homeric times : a suit of fourteenth-century armour gives no little help towards understanding the battles of Crecy, Neville's Cross, and Poitiers.
We may see this clearly if we descend to more of detail.
Most important assistance is given by archæology to that branch of historical study which is termed the comparative history of religions; so important, that many are inclined to consider the word “history” in this connection as bearing its original and older sense of “orderly research," as in the commencement of the first book of Herodotus, or in our own phrase, “Natural History,” and to look upon the study in question as purely archæological. I do not agree with these critics : I consider the history of religions to be an inquiry into a phase of human development, the various distortions by various classes of thinkers of the one primeval and unwritten revelation of God. And here the archæologist is a valuable helperif not historian himself—in collecting and classifying the different objects which tell of the religious beliefs and religious terrors of ages now gone by. We know how and what Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Italy, Scandinavia, feared and worshipped ; and India, Polynesia, Australia, Mexico, Peru, contribute to our knowledge of the varied ways in which humanity has contemplated the Supreme.
In the right understanding of the one true religion, the written revelation and its records, archæology plays no inconsiderable part. The antiquary's research among the written and painted and sculptured remains of great nations of old, has been of inestimable value in the testimony it has borne to the truthfulness of our sacred books, and, I may add, in its correction of erroneous fancies, not on the part of their opponents only, but also of their upholders. For instance, it was imagined, not so very long ago, that the Hebrew people were, for a considerable time, all but savages in a land of savagery ; that they and their neighbours were almost entirely devoid of art, of writing, of all that we term civilization. The archæologist has shown us the reverse. They were a cultivated people, and those with whom they came in contact were cultivated too. Hittite, and Canaanite, and Jebusite were far from being unkempt barbarians; and Akkadians and Sumerians had a literature of their own, long before Sheikh Abraham led his people southwards beyond the stream of the Phrat.
The archæology of later times is still the handmaid of sacred history. The study of Christian antiquities is not only useful, but, I should say, essential to the true interpretation of the New Testament, and of the uninspired documents belonging to our religion, considered as bearing upon the history of that religion.
If we turn to secular history, we find the archæologist still one of its most valuable and trustworthy friends and seconders. No doubt, where we have clearly.written records left us, his services are not so conspicuously important. He is, however, a good helper, and often aids the historian in elucidating some point of difficulty: Greek and Roman antiquities help to explain Thucydides and Livy. In the absence of written records the archaeologist and historian are one. Not to mention such as Herodotus (whose histories are half antiquarian), and in later times Diodorus and Ælian (who is an antiquary pure and simple), where would our Egyptian history now be without the researches—the antiquarian researches —of Bruce, Young, Champollion, Samuel Birch, Wilkinson, Lepsius, De Rougé, Lenormant, Petrie ? All these are archæologists rather than historians; but without them our early Egyptian history would have been confined to a few notices in Scripture, a book of Herodotus, and, valeat quantum, Manetho.
Seti, Menephtah, and Thothmes would have been all but unknown. So Assyrian and Babylonian history is due to the antiquaries Rich, Botta, Layard, Rawlinson, Rassam ; their archæology has led to the combined historical and archeological achievements of Sayce and Maspero. It is archæology which aids history in dealing with the extinct civilizations, as well as the religions, of Peru and Mexico; furnishing the data on which to found the conclusions to be drawn as to the development of humanity in the far West. We hope for a little more light to help us to a history of the Etruscans, fuller than what Isaac Taylor has as yet been able to give us. Some day perhaps materials will be forthcoming for filling up the sadly blank pages of the history of Carthage. We may be sure that in this the archæologist will be the historian's trusty assistant ; and that a Punic Layard will be at the side of a Punic Gibbon, to tell the full story of the rise, the decline, and the fall of the Empress of the Seas.
It is not, however, with the history of other races and of distant lands that our British Association is solely, or even chiefly, concerned. We have to deal especially with the antiquities of our own land and our own kindred. Here, too, the archæologist is at the historian's side. Keltic, Kymric, Romano-British, Scandinavian, SaxonAnglian relics afford a wide field for scientific study, and tell us tales of the ways and habits of our forefathers which are deeply interesting to us in themselves, and illustrate marvellously what the historian finds in old chronicles and records. In this province, however, more than in any other, archæology and history interlace and interpenetrate one another. This is especially true of that later period in which we approach the mystic number of fifteen centuries, which is supposed to separate the mediæval from the modern. The archæologist of the fourteenth century becomes merged in the historian.
We find, on the other hand, a department of archæology in which the student is neither identified with, nor an assitant to, the historian. I mean, that which is concerned with the periods called Prehistoric. Here the antiquary is the pioneer. His researches may result in history'; they at all events lead towards it. Here in our own lands-whatever conclusions a De la Beche, or a Pengelly, or a MacEnery may draw from the contents of Kent's cavern, from cave-bears' and hyænas' bones, and mammoths' teeth, and roughly-cut or smoothly-cut flints embedded in stalagmite-archæology has proved, as a matter of history, a fact concerning the earlier inhabitants of this country. A comparison of the remains of habitations found on Dartmoor and elsewhere, especially in Scotland, with similar erections made, and occasionally still made, by Laps and Fins, lead to the conclusion that our early history does not begin with the Aryan Kelts, but that an earlier Turanian race preceded them. How they disappeared before the Kelts—whether by the method adopted now by a monarch, supposed to be civilized, when he wishes to rid himself of an obnoxious tribe, viz., that of massacre, or whether they gradually vanished before a superior race, like the Red men in Newfoundland, or the Guanches in the Canaries, or whether the brachycephalic was absorbed by the dolichocephalicwe cannot now say ; but the archæologist tells the historian that there they were, and that Kelts overcame them ; to retire in their turn before those German tribes, fusion with whom has given rise to the truly historic race to which we belong.
This study of the primeval antiquities of our own country is, naturally enough, extremely fascinating to
One branch of it I wish to commend to the Association, as I am not aware that it has ever been deeply
gone into; I mean the search for Pre-Keltic names. It seems to me highly probable that many of our names of places, which cannot be explained as forms or corruptions either of Teutonic or Keltic words, may be legacies left us by the vanished predecessors of the Kelts, and might be identified among Ugrian or Tschudic roots. I venture to suggest this work as likely to be interesting to a philological antiquary, and perhaps to lead to results which may be valuable to the scientific historian.
The Address was concluded as follows:
Before concluding, and thanking you for the kind manner in which you have listened to me, I must call your attention from far-off ages to affairs of the present week. First, I commend to you most heartily the interesting excursions and visits arranged (as you will see in the programme) for every day in the week. Rahere's Church of St. Bartholomew, the Charterhouse, the Temple, Lambeth, in London and its neighbourhood; St. Albans, Hatfield, Maidstone, Rochester, Waltham Abbey, will most instructively and if weather permits—most pleasantly, occupy six afternoons; while the evenings will be devoted to the reading and discussion of papers. These will be given at the Guildhall, with the exception of one of special interest on Old London (Pre-Roman), which will be read by Dr. Phené, on Wednesday evening (23rd), at a reception to be given by the Clothworkers Company at their Hall in Mincing Lane.
Then I must ask you to offer your grateful thanks to the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London for the welcome they have accorded to the Association, for the substantial assistance they have given towards the necessary expenditure, and for the use of the Guildhall for our evening meetings. I am quite sure that you feel the gratitude 1 ask you to express to his Lordship for making these meetings feasible ; and that your grateful feeling will be redoubled after we have passed, as I am confident we shall pass, a week of profoundly interesting occupation and converse.