Chapter I: Part 1

INTRODUCTORY LECTURE

ON

ARCHÆOLOGY.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_Cambridge_:
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

AN

INTRODUCTORY LECTURE

ON

ARCHÆOLOGY

_Delivered before the University of Cambridge._

BY

CHURCHILL BABINGTON, B.D., F.L.S.

DISNEY PROFESSOR OF ARCHÆOLOGY, SENIOR FELLOW OF ST JOHN’S COLLEGE,
MEMBER OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LITERATURE, OF THE NUMISMATIC
AND SYRO-EGYPTIAN SOCIETIES, HONORARY MEMBER OF THE
HISTORICO-THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LEIPSIC, AND OF
THE ARCHÆOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF ROME.

CAMBRIDGE:
DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO.
LONDON: BELL AND DALDY.
1865.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PREFACE.

-------

The following Lecture was divided in the delivery into two parts; illustrative specimens being exhibited after the conclusion of the delivery of each portion. It has been suggested that I should add in the form of notes a few books which may prove useful to the students of particular branches of Archæology; my best thanks are due to the Rev. T. G. Bonney and the Rev. W. G. Searle for their kind and valuable assistance in drawing up certain of the lists. For ancient art and archæology K. O. Müller’s Manual, so often referred to, will in general sufficiently indicate the bibliography, and it is only in a few departments, in numismatics more especially, that it has been deemed necessary to add anything to his references. M. Labarte’s Handbook, from which a great part of the concluding portion of this lecture is derived, will do the same thing, though in a far less complete manner, for medieval art.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS.

-------

PLAN of the Lecture, pp. 1-3.

Archæology defined, and the principal kinds of archæological monuments
specified, pp. 3-6.

Nature of the Disney Professorship of Archæology explained; its
comprehensive character; the advantages of this, pp. 6-13.

Sketch of the existing remains of Antiquity among different nations,
beginning with primeval man, pp. 13-21. The Egyptians, pp. 21-26.
The Babylonians, pp. 26, 27. The Assyrians, pp. 27, 28. The
Persians, pp. 28, 29. The Jews, pp. 29-31. The Phœnicians, pp. 31,
32. The Lycians, pp. 32, 33. The Greeks, pp. 33-41. The Etruscans,
p. 41. The Romans, pp. 42-46. The Celts, pp. 43, 44. The Byzantine
empire and the European nations during the middle ages, pp. 46-61.
Recapitulation, pp. 61, 62.

Qualifications necessary for an archæologist. He must be a collector of
facts and objects, and be able to reason on them. He must also be a
man of learning. Exact scholarship, an appreciation of art, and a
knowledge of natural history often useful or necessary for the
archæologist, pp. 63-68.

Pleasures and advantages which result from archæology. It illustrates
and is illustrated by ancient literature. Modern art aided by
archæology. Archæology deserving of cultivation for its own sake, as
an ennobling and delightful pursuit, pp. 68-74.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTORY LECTURE

ON

ARCHÆOLOGY.

FOLLOWING the example of my distinguished predecessor in the Disney
Professorship of Archæology, I open my first Course of Lectures with
an introductory Lecture on Archæology itself, so far as the very
limited time for preparation has allowed me to attempt one.

I cannot indeed conceal from myself, and still less can I conceal
from you, that no introductory Lecture which I could give, even if I
were to take my own time in writing it, would bear any comparison
with the compositions of his elegant and learned pen. It certainly
does not proceed from flattery, and I hope not from an undue
partiality of friendship to say of him, that in his power of
grasping a complicated subject, of presenting it in a clear light,
of illustrating it with varied learning, and of expressing himself
in relation thereto in appropriate language, I have rarely seen his
equal. To how great a disadvantage then must I necessarily appear,
when I have had only six weeks’ time in which to get ready this as
well as five other Lectures, and have been moreover compelled to
devote a considerable part even of that short time to other and not
less important duties. A great unwillingness however that the
Academical year should pass over without any Archæological Lectures
being delivered by the Disney Professor, has induced me to make the
attempt more quickly than would under other circumstances have been
desirable or even justifiable; and I venture to hope that when
allowance is made for the exigency of the case, I shall find in you,
who have honoured this Lecture by your presence, a clement and even
an indulgent audience.

In an introductory Lecture which deals with generalities, it is
hardly to be expected that I either can say or ought to try to say
much which is absolutely new to any of my hearers; and I shall not
affect to say anything peculiarly striking, but shall rather attempt
to bring before you in a plain way a view of the subject, which aims
at being concise and comprehensive; and in connexion therewith
respectfully to submit a few observations which have relation to
other Academical studies, as well as to the character of this
particular Professorship.

What I propose then to do is this, first to explain what Archæology
is; next to put in a clear light what the character of this
Professorship is; after that to attempt a general sketch of the
existing remains of Antiquity; then to point out the qualifications
necessary or desirable for an archæologist; and in conclusion, to
indicate the pleasure and advantage which flow from his pursuits.

The field of Archæology is vast, and almost boundless; the eye, even
the most experienced eye, can hardly take in the whole prospect; and
those who have most assiduously laboured in its exploration will be
most ready to admit, that there are portions, and those large
portions, which are to them either almost or altogether unknown.

For what is Archæology? It is, I conceive, the science of teaching
history by its monuments[1], of whatever character those monuments
may be. When I say history, I use the word not in the limited sense
of the history of dynasties or of governments. Archæology does
indeed concern itself with these, and splendidly does it illustrate
and illuminate them; but it also concerns itself with every kind of
monument of man which the ravages of time have spared.

Footnote 1:

Perhaps it would be more correct to say ‘by its _contemporary
sensible_ monuments,’ so as to exclude later copies of ancient
writings, or the _monumenta litterarum_, which fall more
especially to the province of the scholar. A MS. of Aristotle of
the thirteenth century is an archæological monument of that
century only; it is a literary monument of the fourth century B.C.
But a Greek epigram or epitaph which occurs on a sepulchral
monument of the same or any other century B.C. is an archæological
as well as a literary monument of that century.

Archæology concerns itself with the domestic and the social, as well
as with the religious, the commercial, and the political life of all
nations and of all tribes in the ages that have passed away. All
that men in ancient times have made, and left behind them, is the
farrago of our study.

The archæologist will consequently make observations and
speculations on the sites of ancient cities where men have dwelt; on
their walls and buildings, sacred and profane; on their altars and
their market-places; on their subterranean constructions, whether
sepulchres, treasuries, or drains. He will trace the roads and the
fosses along which men of the old world moved, and on which men
often still move; he will explore the routes of armies and the camps
where they have pitched, and will prowl about the barrows in which
they sleep;

Exesa inveniet scabra robigine pila,
Grandiaque effossis mirabitur ossa sepulchris.

He will also collect and classify every kind of object, which man
has made for use or for ornament in his own home, or in the city; in
the fields, or on the water. He will arrange the weapons of offence
and defence according to their material and age; whether of stone,
of bronze, of iron, or of steel; among which some are so rude that a
practised eye alone distinguishes them from the broken flint stones
lying in the field, others again so elaborate as to rank among the
most beautiful productions both of classical and medieval art; he
will not disdain to preserve the bricks and the tiles, which have
once formed parts of Asiatic cities or of Roman farms; he will
excavate the villas of the ancients; unearth their mosaic pavements;
clean their lamps and candelabra; he will mend or restore their
broken crockery, and glass; he will even penetrate into the lady’s
chamber, turn over her toilet, admire her brooches and her
bracelets, examine her mirrors and her pins; and all this he will do
in addition to studying the nobler works of ancient art, such as
engraved gems and medallions; works chased, carved and embossed in
the precious metals and in ivory; frescoes and vase-paintings;
bronzes and statues. He will, likewise, familiarise himself with the
alphabets of the ancient nations, and exercise his ingenuity in
deciphering their written records, both public and private; whether
these be contained in inscriptions on stones or metal plates, or in
papyrus-rolls, or parchment books; or be scratched on walls or on
statues; or be painted on vases; or, in fine, surround the device of
a coin.

I have now mentioned some of the principal objects of archæology,
which, as I have said, embraces within its range all the monuments
of the history and life of man in times past. And this it does,
beginning with the remains of primeval man, which stretch far beyond
the records of all literary history, and descending along the stream
of time till it approaches, but does not quite reach time actually
present. No sharp line of demarcation separates the past from the
present; you may say that classical archæology terminates with the
overthrow of the Western Empire; you may conceive that medieval
archæology ceases with the reign of Henry the Seventh; but, be this
as it may, in a very few generations the objects of use or of
ornament to us will become the objects of research to the
archæologist; and, I may add, may be the subjects of lectures to my
successors.

For the founder of this Professorship, whose memory is never to be
named without honour, and the University which accepted it, together
with his valuable collection of ancient sculptures, undoubtedly
intended that any kind or class of antiquities whatever might fitly
form the theme of the Professor’s discourse. I say this, because a
misconception has undoubtedly prevailed on this subject, from which
even my learned predecessor himself was not free. “Every nation of
course,” says he, “has its own peculiar archæology. Whether
civilized or uncivilized, whether of historic fame or of obscure
barbarism, Judæa, Assyria, and Egypt; Greece and Rome; India, China,
and Mexico; Denmark, Germany, Britain, and the other nations of
modern Europe, all have their archæology. The field of inquiry,” he
continues, “is boundless, and in the multitude of objects presenting
themselves the enquirer is bewildered. It has been wisely provided
therefore by the founder of this Professorship, that we shall direct
our attention more immediately to one particular class of
Antiquities, and that the noblest and most important of them all, I
mean the Antiquities of Greece and Rome[2].” Very probably such may
have been Mr Disney’s original intention; and if so, this will
easily explain and abundantly pardon the error of my accomplished
friend; but the actual words of the declaration and agreement
between Mr Disney and the University, which is of course the only
document of binding force, are as follows: “That it shall be the
duty of the Professor to deliver in the course of each academical
year, at such days and hours as the Vice-Chancellor shall appoint,
six lectures at least on the subject of Classical, Mediæval and
other Antiquities, the Fine Arts and all matters and things
connected therewith.” Whether he would have acted wisely or not
wisely in limiting the field to classical archæology, he has in
point of fact not thus limited it. And, upon the whole, I must
confess, I am glad that he has imposed no limitation. For while
there are but few who would deny that many of the very choicest
relics of ancient art and of ancient history are to be sought for in
the Greek and Roman saloons and cabinets of the museums of Europe,
yet it must at the same time be admitted that there are other
branches of archæology, which are far too important to be neglected,
and which have an interest, and often a very high interest, of their
own.

Footnote 2:

Marsden’s _Introd. Lect._ p. 5. Cambr. 1852.

Let it be confessed, that the archæology of Greece has in many
respects the pre-eminence over every other. “It is to Greece that
the whole civilized world looks up,” says Canon Marsden, “as its
teacher in literature and in art; and it is to her productions that
we refer as the standard of all that is beautiful, noble, and
excellent. Greece excelled in all that she put her hand to. Her sons
were poets and orators and historians; they were architects and
sculptors and painters. The scantiest gleanings of her soil are
superior to that which constitutes the pride and boast of others.
Scarcely a fragment is picked up from the majestic ruin, which does
not induce a train of thought upon the marvellous grace and beauty
which must have characterized the whole!

Quale te dicat tamen
Antehac fuisse, tales cum sint relliquiæ.”

These eloquent and fervid words proceed from a passionate admirer of
Hellenic art, and a most successful cultivator of its archæology.
Nor do I dare to say that the praise is exaggerated. But at the same
time, viewed in other aspects, the archæology of our own country has
even greater interest and importance for us. What man is there, in
whose breast glows a spark of patriotism, who does not view the
monuments of his country which are everywhere spread around him, (in
this place above most places,) which connect the present with the
remote past, and with many and diverse ages of that past by a
thousand reminiscences, with feelings deeper and nobler than any
exotic remains of antiquity, how charming soever, could either
foment or engender? This love of national antiquities, seated in a
healthy patriotic feeling, has place in the speech of an apostle
himself: “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the
patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried; and his sepulchre
is with us unto this day.” The same feeling prompted Wordsworth thus
to express himself in reference to our ancient colleges and their
former occupants:

I could not always lightly pass
Through the same gateways, sleep where they had slept,
Wake where they waked; I could not always print
Ground where the grass had yielded to the steps
Of generations of illustrious men,
Unmoved....
Their several memories here
Put on a lowly and a touching grace
Of more distinct humanity.

And not only the buildings, but the other archæological monuments of
the University (for so I think I may be permitted to call the
pictures and the busts, and the statues, and the tombs, which are
the glories of our chapels, our libraries and our halls) teach the
same great lessons. They raise up again our own worthies before our
very eyes, calling on us to strive to walk as they walked, dead
though they be and buried; for their effigies and their sepulchres
are ‘with us to this day.’ I must repeat, then, that I am glad that
the Disney Professor is not obliged to confine himself to classical
archæology, sorry as I should be if he were wholly unable to give
lectures on one or more branches of that most interesting
department, which has moreover a special connexion with the
classical studies of the University. It is manifest that the
University intended the Professor to consider no kind of human
antiquities as alien from him; and I think this in itself a very
great gain. For, if the truth must be confessed, antiquaries above
most others have been guilty of the error of despising those
branches of study which are not precisely their own. I forbear to
adduce proofs of this, though I am not unprovided with them; and
even although you would certainly be amused if I were to read them;
classicists against gothicists; gothicists against classicists.

I could wish that the learned and meritorious writers on both sides
had profited by the judicious remarks of Mr Willson, prefixed to Mr
Pugin’s _Specimens of Gothic Architecture in England_. “The
respective beauties and conveniences proper to the Grecian orders in
their pure state or as modified by the Romans and their successors
in the Palladian school may be fully allowed, without a bigoted
exclusion of the style we are accustomed to term Gothic. Nor ought
its merits to be asserted to the disadvantage of the classic style.
Each has its beauties, each has its proportions[3].” One of the most
eminent Gothic architects, Mr George Gilbert Scott, expresses
himself in a very similar spirit. “It may be asked, what influence
do we expect that the present so-called classic styles will exercise
upon the result we are imagining, (_i.e._ the developement of the
architecture of the future). Is the work of three centuries to be
unfelt in the future developements, and are its monuments to remain
among us in a state of isolation, exercising no influence upon
future art? It would, I am convinced, be as unphilosophical to wish,
as it would be unreasonable to expect this[4].” To turn from them to
the classicists. “See how much Athens gains,” says Prof. T. L.
Donaldson, “upon the affections of every people, of every age, by
her Architectural ruins. Not a traveller visits Greece whose chief
purpose is not centred in the Acropolis of Minerva.... But in thus
rendering the homage due to ancient Art it were unjust to pass
without notice those sublime edifices due to the Genius of our
Fathers. It is now unnecessary to enter upon the question, whether
the first ideas of Gothic Architecture were the result of a casual
combination of lines or a felicitous adaptation of form derived
immediately from Nature: But graceful proportion, solemnity of
effect, variety of plan, playfulness of outline and the profoundest
elements of knowledge of construction place these edifices on a par
with any of ancient times. Less pure in conception and detail, they
excel in extent of plan and of disposition, and yield not in the
mysterious effect produced on the feelings of the worshipper. The
sculptured presence of the frowning Jove or the chryselephantine
statue of Minerva were necessary to awe the Heathen into devotion.
But the presence of the Godhead appears, not materially but
spiritually, to pervade the whole atmosphere of one of our Gothic
Cathedrals[5].” The Editor of _The Museum of Classical Antiquities_,
well says, “As antiquity embraces all knowledge, so investigations
into it must be distinct and various. Each antiquary labours for his
own particular object, and each severally assists the other[6].” It
should be borne in mind moreover that archæological remains of every
kind and sort are really a part of human history; and if all parts
of history deserve to be studied, as they most assuredly do, being
parts, though not equally important parts, of the Epic unity of our
race, it will follow even with mathematical precision that all
monuments relating to all parts of that history must be worthy of
study also.

Footnote 3:

P. xix. London, 1821.

Footnote 4:

Scott’s _Remarks on Secular and Domestic Architecture, present and
future_, p. 272. London, 1857.

Footnote 5:

_Preliminary Discourse_ pronounced before the University College
of London, upon the commencement of a series of Lectures on
Architecture, pp. 17-24. London, 1842.

Footnote 6:

_Museum of Classical Antiquities_, Vol. I. p. 1. London, 1851.

I desire therefore to express in language as strong as may be
consistent with propriety, my entire disapproval of pitting one
branch of archæology against another, or indeed any study against
another study. And on this very account I rejoice that the Disney
Professor’s field of choice is as wide as the world itself, so far
as concerns its archæology. There is no country, there is no period
about which he may not occupy himself, or on which he may not
lecture, if he feel himself qualified to do so. He is in a manner
bound by the tenure of his office to treat every branch of
archæology with honourable respect; and this in itself may not be
without a wholesome influence both upon his words and sentiments. I
have been somewhat longer over this matter than I could have wished;
but I thought it desirable that the position of the Disney Professor
should be rightly understood; and I have also endeavoured to shew
the real advantage of that position.

His field then is the world itself; but as this is so (and as I
think rightly so) there is a very true and real danger lest he and
his hearers should be mazed and bewildered at the contemplation of
its magnitude. Yet in spite of that danger I will venture to invite
you to follow the outlines of the great entirety of the relics of
the ages that have for ever passed away. I say the outlines, and
even this is almost too much, for I am compelled to shade some parts
of the picture so obscurely, and to throw so much of other parts
into the background, that even of the outlines I can distinctly
present to you but a portion. Thus I will say little more of the
archæology of the New World, than that there is one which reaches
far beyond the period of Spanish conquest, comprising among many
other things ruins of Mexican cities, exquisite monuments of
bas-reliefs and other carvings in stone; I will not invite you into
the far East of the Old World, to explore the long walls and
Buddhist temples of the ancient and stationary civilisation of
China, or to dwell upon the objects of its fictile and other arts;
but leaving both this and all the adjacent countries of Thibet,
Japan and even India without further notice, or with only passing
allusions, _spatiis conclusus iniquis_, I will endeavour, so far as
my very limited knowledge permits, the delineation of the most
salient peculiarities of the various remains of the old world till
the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, and then attempt to trace
briefly the remains of successive medieval classes of antiquities,
until we arrive at almost modern times. I can name but few objects
under each division of the vast subject; but these will be selected
so as to suggest as much as possible others of a kindred kind. In
addressing myself to such an audience, I may, if anywhere, act upon
the assumption, _Verbum sapienti sat est_: a single word may suggest
a train of thought. If I cannot wholly escape the charge of
tediousness, I must still be content: for I am firmly convinced
after the most careful consideration that I can pursue no course
which is equally profitable, though I might take many others which
might be more amusing.

It would now appear probable that the earliest extant remains of
human handicraft or skill have as yet been found, not on the banks
of the Nile or the Euphrates, but in the drift and in the caverns of
Western Europe. Only yesterday, as I may say, it has been found out
that in a geological period when the reindeer was the denizen of
Southern France, and when the climate was possibly arctic, there
dwelt in the caverns of the Périgord a race of men, who were
unacquainted with the use of metals, but who made flint and bone
weapons and instruments; who lived by fishing and the chase, eating
the flesh of the reindeer, the aurochs, the wild goat and the
chamois; using their skins for clothes which they stitched with bone
needles, and their bones for weapon handles, on which they have
etched representations of the animals themselves. Specimens of these
things were placed last year in the British Museum; and a full
account of the discoveries in 1862 and 1863 may be seen in the
_Revue Archéologique_. Some distinguished antiquaries consider that
they are the earliest human remains in Western Europe. Various other
discoveries in the same regions of late years have tended towards
shewing that the time during which man has lived upon the earth is
much greater than we had commonly supposed. The geological and
archæological circumstances under which the flint implements were
found at Abbeville, and St Acheul, near Amiens, in the valley of the
Somme, left no doubt that they were anterior by many ages to the
Roman Empire. They have a few points of similarity to those found in
the caverns of the Périgord, and as they occur along with the
remains of the _Elephas Antiquus_ and the hippopotamus, Sir Charles
Lyell infers that both these animals coexisted with man; and perhaps
on the whole we may consider them rather than those of the Périgord
to be the earliest European remains of man, or of man at all.
Similar weapons have been found in the drift in this country, in
Suffolk, Bedfordshire, and elsewhere. At Brixham, near Torquay, a
cavern was examined in 1858, covered with a floor of stalagmite, in
which were imbedded bones of the reindeer and also an entire hind
leg of the extinct cave-bear, every bone of which was in its proper
place; the leg must consequently have been deposited there when the
separate bones were held together by their ligaments. Below this
floor was a mass of loam or bone-earth, varying from one to fifteen
feet in thickness, and amongst it, and the gravel lying below it,
were discovered about fifteen flint knives, recognised by practised
archæologists as artificially formed, and among them one very
perfect tool close to the leg of the bear. It thus becomes manifest
that the extinct bear lived after the flint tools were made, or at
any rate not earlier; so that man in this district was either the
contemporary of the cave-bear, or (as would seem more probable) his
predecessor. But shortness of time forbids me to do more than to
indicate that in western Europe generally, as well as in Britain, we
have an archæology beginning with the age of the extinct animals or
quaternary geological epoch and connecting itself with the age of
the Roman Empire, when the first literary notices of those
countries, with slight exceptions, commence. The antiquaries and
naturalists of Denmark conjointly (these indeed should always be
united, having much in common; and I am happy in being able to say
that a love of archæology has often been united with a love of
natural science by members of this University, among whom the late
and the present Professor of Botany may be quoted as examples)—these
Danish archæologists and naturalists I say, have made out three
distinct periods during this interval: the age of stone contemporary
with the pine forests; the age of bronze commencing with the oak
forests which lie over the pine in the peat; and the age of iron
co-extensive with the beech forests which succeeded the oak, and
which covered the country in the Roman times as they cover it now.
The skulls belonging to the oldest or stone age resemble those of
the modern Laplanders; those of the second and third are of a more
elongated type.

The refuse-heaps along the shores of the islands of the Baltic,
consisting of the remains of mollusks and vertebrated animals,
mingled with stone weapons, prove the great antiquity of the age of
stone; the oyster then flourished in places where, by reason of the
exclusion of the ocean from the brackish Baltic, it does not now
exist. None of the animals now extinct, however, occur in these
Kjökkenmödding, as they are called, except the wild bull, the _Bos
primigenius_, which was alive in Roman times; but the bones of the
auk, now, in all probability, extinct in Europe, are frequent; also
those of the capercailzie, now very rare in the southern districts
of Scandinavia, though abundant in Norway, which would find abundant
food in the buds of the pines growing in pre-historic times in the
peat bogs. Similar refuse-heaps, left in Massachusetts and in
Georgia by the North American Indians, are considered by Sir C.
Lyell, who has seen them, to have been there for centuries before
the white man arrived. They have also been found, I understand, very
recently in Scotland in Caithness. The stone weapons have now been
sharpened by rubbing, and are less rude and probably more recent
than those of the drift of the Somme valley, or of the caverns of
the Périgord. The only domestic animal belonging to the stone age,
yet found in Scandinavia, is the dog; and even this appears to have
been wanting in France. In the ages of bronze and iron various
domestic animals existed; but no cereal grains, as it would seem, in
the whole of Scandinavia. Weapons and tools belonging to these three
periods, as well as fragments of pottery and other articles, are
very widely diffused over Europe, and have been met with in great
abundance in our own country (in Ireland more especially), as well
as near the Swiss-lake habitations, built on piles, to which
attention has only been called since 1853. It is strange that all
the Lake settlements of the bronze period are confined to West and
Central Switzerland: in the more Eastern Lakes those of the stone
period alone have been discovered.

Similar habitations of a Pæonian tribe dwelling in Lake Prasias, in
modern Roumelia, are mentioned by Herodotus, and they may be
compared, in some degree, with the Irish Lake-dwellings or
Crannoges, _i.e._ artificial islands, and more especially with the
stockaded islands, occurring in various parts of the country: and
which are accompanied by the weapons and instruments and pottery of
the three aforesaid periods. Even in England slight traces of
similar dwellings have been found near Thetford, not accompanied by
any antiquities, but by the bones of various animals, the goat, the
pig, the red deer, and the extinct ox, the _Bos longifrons_, the
skulls of which last were in almost all instances fractured by the
butcher.

As to the chronology and duration of the three periods I shall say
nothing, though not ignorant that some attempts have been made to
determine them. They must have comprehended several thousand years,
but how many seems at present extremely uncertain. I should perhaps
say that Greek coins of Marseilles, which would probably be of the
age of the Roman Republic, have been found in Switzerland in some
few aquatic stations, and in tumuli among bronze and iron implements
mixed. The cereals wanting in Scandinavia appear in Switzerland from
the most remote period; and domestic animals, the ox, sheep, and
goat, as well as the dog, even in the earliest stone-settlements.
Among the ancient mounds of the valley of the Ohio, in North
America, have been found (besides pottery and sculpture and various
articles in silver and copper) stone weapons much resembling those
discovered in France and other places in Europe. Before passing from
these pre-historic remains, as they are badly called, to the
historic, let me beg you to observe a striking illustration of the
relation of archæology to history. Archæology is not the handmaid of
history; she occupies a far higher position than that: archæology
is, as I said at the outset, the science of teaching history by its
monuments. Now for all western and northern Europe nearly the whole
of its early history must be deduced, so far as it can be deduced at
all, from the monuments themselves; for the so-called monuments of
literature afford scanty aid, and for that reason our knowledge of
these early ages is necessarily very incomplete. Doubtless, many a
brave Hector and many a brave Agamemnon lived, fought, and died in
the ages of stone and of bronze; but they are oppressed in eternal
night, unwept and unknown, because no Scandinavian Homer has
recorded their illustrious deeds. Still, we must be thankful for
what we can get; and if archæological remains (on which not a letter
of an alphabet is inscribed) cannot tell us everything, yet, at
least, everything that we do know about these ages, or very nearly
so, is deduced by archæology alone.

We must now take a few rapid glances at the remains of the great
civilised nations of the ancient world. Mr Kenrick observes that the
seats of its earliest civilisation extend across southern Asia in a
chain, of which China forms the Eastern, and Egypt the Western
extremity; Syria, Mesopotamia, Assyria, and India, are the
intermediate links. In all these countries, when they become known
to us, we find the people cultivating the soil, dwelling in cities,
and practising the mechanical arts, while their neighbours lie in
barbarism and ignorance. We cannot, he thinks, fix by direct
historical evidence the transmission of this earliest civilisation
from one country to another. But we may determine with which of them
ancient history and archæology must begin. The monuments of Egypt
surpass those of all the rest, as it would appear, by many
centuries. None of the others exercised much influence on European
civilisation till a later period, some exception being made for the
Phœnician commerce; but the connection of European with Egyptian
civilisation is both direct and important. “From Egypt,” he remarks,
“it came to Greece, from Greece to Rome, from Rome to the remoter
nations of the West, by whom it has been carried throughout the
globe[7].” As regards its archæology, which is very peculiar and
indeed in some respects unique, I must now say a few words. The
present remains of Memphis, the earliest capital, said to have been
founded by Athothis, the son of Menes, the first king of the first
dynasty, are not great; but so late as the fourteenth century they
were very considerable. Temples and gateways, colossal statues and
colossal lions then existed, which are now no more. Whether any of
them approached the date of the foundation it is useless to enquire.
Now, the most remarkable relic is a colossal statue of Rameses II.,
which, when perfect, must have been about forty-three feet high.
This monarch is of the XVIIIth dynasty, which embraces the most
splendid and flourishing period of Egyptian history; and though much
uncertainty still prevails for the early Egyptian chronology, it
appears to be well made out and agreed that this dynasty began to
reign about fifteen centuries before the Christian era. But the
pyramids and tombs of Ghizeh, and of several other places at no
great distance from Memphis, are of a much earlier date; and the
great pyramid is securely referred to a king of the fourth dynasty.
“Probably at no place in the entire history of Egypt,” says Mr
Osburn, “do the lists and the Greek authors harmonize better with
the historical notices on the monuments than at the commencement of
this dynasty[8].” The system of hieroglyphic writing was the same
(according to Mr Kenrick) in all its leading peculiarities, as it
continued to the end of the monarchy. I regret to say that some
eminent men have tried to throw discredit, and even ridicule, on the
attempts which, I think, have been most laudably made with great
patience, great acuteness, and great learning, to decipher and
interpret the Egyptian and other ancient languages. Many of us,
doubtless, have seen a piece of pleasantry in which
_Heigh-diddle-diddle, The cat and the fiddle_ is treated as an
unknown language; the letters are divided into words—all wrongly, of
course—these words are analysed with a great show of erudition, and
a literal Latin version accompanies the whole. If I remember (for I
have mislaid the amusing production) it proves to be an invocation
of the gods, to be used at a sacrifice. Now, a joke is a good thing
in its place; only do not let it be made too much of. Every
archæologist, beginning with Jonathan Oldbuck, must sometimes fall
into blunders, when he takes inscriptions in hand, even if the
language be a known one; and, of course, _à fortiori_, when but
little known. My own opinion on hieroglyphics would be of no value
whatever, as I know nothing beyond what I have read in a few modern
authors, and have never studied the subject; but, allow me to
observe, that I had a conversation very lately with my learned and
excellent friend, Dr Birch, of the British Museum, who is now
engaged in making a dictionary of hieroglyphics, and he assured me
that a real progress has been made in the study of them, that a
great deal of certainty has been attained to; while there is still
much that requires further elucidation. To the judgment of such a
man, who has spent a great part of his life in the study of Egyptian
antiquities, though he has splendidly illustrated other antiquities
also, I must think that greater weight should be attached than to
the judgment of others, eminent as they may be in some branches of
learning, who have never studied this as a specialty.

Footnote 7:

_Ancient Egypt_, Vol. I. p. 3. London, 1850.

Footnote 8:

_Monumental History of Egypt_, Vol. I. p. 262. London, 1854.

The relation of archæology to Egyptian history deserves especial
notice. We have not here, as in pre-historic Europe, a mere
multitude of uninscribed and inconsiderable remains; but we have
colossal monuments of all kinds—temples, gateways, obelisks,
statues, rock sculptures—more or less over-written with
hieroglyphics; also sepulchral-chambers, in many instances covered
with paintings, in addition to a variety of smaller works, mummy
cases, jewelry, scarabæi, pottery, &c., upon many of which are
inscriptions. By aid of these monuments mostly, but by no means
exclusively, the history of the Pharaohs and the manners and customs
of their people are recovered. The _monumenta litterarum_ themselves
are frequently preserved on the monuments of stone and other
materials.

For the pyramids of Ghizeh and the adjoining districts, for the
glorious temples of Dendera, of Karnak, the grandest of all the
remains of the Pharaohs, as well as for those of Luxor, with its now
one obelisk, of Thebes, of Edfou, of Philæ, likewise for the
grottoes of Benihassan, I must leave you to your own imagination or
recollection, which may be aided in some degree by a few of the
beautiful photographs by Bedford, which are now before your eyes.
They extend along the banks and region of the Nile—for this is
Egypt—from the earliest times down to the age of the Ptolemies and
of Cleopatra herself, and even of the Roman empire, in the case of
Dendera, where the portico was added by Tiberius to Cleopatra’s
temple. Before quitting these regions I would remark, that the
extraordinary rock-hewn temple of Aboo-Simbel in Nubia, which
includes the most beautiful colossal statues yet found—their height
as they sit is more than fifty feet—bears some similarity to certain
Indian temples, especially to the temple of Siva at Tinnevelly, and
the Kylas at Ellora, which last has excited the astonishment of all
travellers. “Undoubtedly,” says Mr Fergusson, “there are many very
striking points of resemblance ... but, on the other hand, the two
styles differ so widely in details and in purpose, that we cannot
positively assert the actual connexion between them, which at first
sight seems unquestionable[9].”

Footnote 9:

_Handbook of Architecture_, p. 101. London, 1859.

The archæology of the Babylonian empire need only occupy a few
moments. The antiquity of Babylon is proved to be as remote as the
fifteenth century B.C., by the occurrence of the name on a monument
of Thothmes III., an Egyptian monarch of the XVIIIth dynasty. It may
be much older than that; but the archæological remains of the Birs
Nimroud (which was long imagined to be the tower of Babel) hitherto
found are not older than the age of Nebuchadnezzar. This palatial
structure consisted, in Mr Layard’s opinion, of successive
horizontal terraces, rising one above another like steps in a
staircase. Every inscribed brick taken from it,—and there are
thousands and tens of thousands of these,—bears the name of
Nebuchadnezzar. It is indeed possible that he may have added to an
older structure, or rebuilt it; and if so we may one day find more
ancient relics in the Birs. But at a place called Mujelibé (the
Overturned) are remains of a Babylonian palace not covered by soil,
also abounding with Nebuchadnezzar’s bricks, where Mr Layard found
one solitary fragment of a sculptured slab, having representations
of gods in head-dresses of the Assyrian fashion, and indicating that
the Babylonian palaces were probably similarly ornamented. A very
curious tablet was also brought from Bagdad of the age of
Nebuchadnezzar, giving, according to Dr Hincks, an account of the
temples which he built. Besides these, “a few inscribed tablets of
stone and baked clay, figures in bronze and terra cotta, metal
objects of various kinds, and many engraved cylinders and gems are
almost the only undoubted Babylonian antiquities hitherto brought to
Europe.” Babylonia abounds in remains, but they are so
mixed—Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Arsacian, Sassanian, and
Christian—that it is hard to separate them. Scarcely more than one
or two stone figures or slabs have been dug out of the vast mass of
débris; and, as Isaiah has said, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and
all the graven images of her gods hath Jehovah broken unto the
ground[10].”

Footnote 10:

See Layard’s _Nineveh and Babylon_, chapters xxii, xxiii.,
especially pp. 504, 528, 532. London, 1853.

The most splendid archæological discovery of our age is the
disinterment of the various palaces and other monuments of the
Assyrian Empire. The labours of Mr Layard and M. Botta have made
ancient Assyria rise before our eyes in all its grandeur and in all
its atrocity. In visiting the British Museum we seem to live again
in ancient Nineveh. We behold the sculptured slabs of its palaces,
on which the history of the nation is both represented and written;
we wonder at its strange compound divinities, its obelisks, its
elegant productions in metal, in ivory, and in terra cotta. By
patient and laborious attention to the cuneiform inscriptions, aided
by the notices in ancient authors, sacred and profane, men like Sir
H. Rawlinson and Dr Hincks have recovered something like a
succession of Assyrian kings, ranging from about 1250 B.C. to about
600 B.C., and many particulars of their reigns, some of which bring
out in a distinct manner the accurate knowledge of the writers of
the Old Testament.

The remains of ancient Persia are too considerable to be passed
over. Among other monuments at Pasargadæ, a city of the early
Persians, is a great monolith, on which is a bas-relief, and a
cuneiform inscription above, “I am Cyrus the king, the Achæmenian.”
Here is the tomb of the founder of the empire.

At Susa, the winter seat of the Persian kings from the time of
Cyrus, Mr Loftus and Sir W. F. Williams have found noble marble
structures raised by Darius, the son of Hystaspes (424—405 B.C.),
whose great palace was here: commenced by himself and completed by
Artaxerxes II. or Mnemon (405—359 B.C.). Both here and at
Persepolis, the richest city after Susa (destroyed, as we all
remember from Dryden’s ode, by Alexander), are ruins of magnificent
columns of the most elaborate ornamentation, and many cuneiform
inscriptions, deciphered by Lassen and Rawlinson. Mr Loftus remarks
on the great similarity of the buildings of Persepolis and Susa,
which form a distinct style of architecture. This is the salient
feature of Persian archæology, and to him I refer you upon it[11]. I
cannot dwell upon other ruins in these regions, or on the minor
objects, coins, cylinders, and vases of the ancient Persian empire;
and still less on the very numerous coins of the Arsacidæ, and
Sassanidæ, who afterwards succeeded to it.

Footnote 11:

See his _Travels and Researches in Chaldæa and Susiana_, ch.
xxviii. London, 1857; also Smith’s _Dict. of Greek and Roman
Geography_, s. v. Pasargadæ, Persepolis, Susa; and Vaux’s _Nineveh
and Persepolis_, London, 1850.

Of ancient Judæa we possess as yet very scanty archæological
monuments indeed before the fall of the monarchy. The so-called
Tombs of the Kings are now, I believe, generally considered to
belong to the Herodian period. Of the Temple of Jerusalem, the holy
place of the Tabernacle of the Most Highest, not one stone is left
upon another. And we may well conceive that nothing less than its
destruction would effectually convince the world of the great truth
that an hour had arrived in which neither that holy mountain on
which it was built, nor any other in the whole world, was to be the
scene of the exclusive worship of the Father. The sites of the Holy
Places, however, have naturally excited much attention, and have
been well illustrated by several distinguished resident members of
our University, and also by a foreign gentleman who for some time
resided among us. Dr Pierotti had the singular good fortune to
discover the subterranean drains by which the blood of the victims,
slaughtered in the Temple, was carried off; and this discovery
afforded valuable aid in determining various previously disputed
matters in connexion with the Temple. He likewise came upon some
masonry in the form of bevelled stones below the surface, which was
not unreasonably supposed to belong to Solomon’s Temple; but it now
appears that this opinion is doubtful. Besides these, we have the
sepulchres of the patriarchs at Hebron, guarded with scrupulous
jealousy; and tanks at the same place, which may be as old as the
time of David, and perhaps one or two things more of a similar kind.
We may well hope that the explorations which are now being set on
foot for bringing to light the antiquities of Palestine may add to
their number.

In the relation of Jewish archæology to Jewish history we have a
case quite different to all those that have gone before it: there
the native archæology was more or less extensive, the independent
native literature scanty or non-existent; here, where the archæology
is almost blotted out, is it precisely the reverse. We have in the
sacred books of the Old Testament an ample literary history: we have
scarcely any monumental remains of regal Judæa at all. With regard
to the New Testament the matter is otherwise; archæological
illustrations, as well as literary, exist in abundance, and some
very striking proofs from archæology have been adduced of the
veracity and trustworthiness of its authors. My predecessor bestowed
great attention on the numismatic and other monumental illustrations
of Scripture, and herein set a good example to all that should come
after him. Archæology is worthily employed in illustrating every
kind of ancient literature; most worthily of all does she occupy
herself in the illustration and explanation and confirmation of the
sacred writings, of the Book of books.

The antiquities of Phœnicia need not detain us long. Opposite to
Aradus is an open quadrangular enclosure, excavated in rock, with a
throne in the centre for the worship of Astarte and Melkarth; this
is the only Phœnician temple discovered in Phœnicia, except a small
monolithal temple at Ornithopolis, about nine miles from Tyre, of
high antiquity, dedicated apparently to Astarte. I wish however to
direct your attention to the characteristic feature of Phœnician
architecture, its enormous blocks of stone bevelled at the joints.
You have them in the walls of Aradus and in other places in
Phœnicia. They are also found in the temple of the Sun at Baalbec,
and may with great probability, I conceive, be regarded as
Phœnician; though the rest of the beautiful architectural remains
there are Greco-Roman of the Imperial period, and perhaps the best
specimens of their kind in existence. Among other Phœnician
antiquities we have sarcophagi, and sepulchral chambers for
receiving them, also very beautiful variegated glass found over a
good part of Europe and Asia, commonly called Greek, but perhaps
more reasonably presumed to be Phœnician. Most of the remains found
on the sites of the Phœnician settlements are either so late
Phœnician, or so little Phœnician at all, as at Carthage, that I
shall make no apology for passing over both them, and the few
exceptions also, just alluding however to the existence of a
remarkable hypæthral temple in Malta, which I myself saw nearly
twenty years ago, not long, I believe, after it was uncovered. With
regard to the strange vaulted towers of Sardinia, called Nuraggis,
they may be Phœnician or Carthaginian, but their origin is
uncertain. “All Phœnician monuments,” says Mr Kenrick, “in countries
unquestionably occupied by the Phœnicians are recent[12].” He makes
the remark in reference to the Lycian archæology. Whether the
Lycians were of Phœnician origin or not, their rock-temples and
rock-tombs, abounding in sculptures (illustrative both of their
mythology and military history), shew that they were not much behind
the Greeks in the arts. With the general appearance of their
Gothic-like architecture, and of their strange bilingual
inscriptions, Greek and Lycian, we are of course familiarised by the
Lycian Room in the British Museum. With regard to the relation of
Phœnician and Lycian archæology to the history of the peoples
themselves, it must be sufficient to say, that their history, both
literary and monumental, is quite fragmentary; in the case of
Phœnicia the literary notices perhaps preserve more to us than the
monumental; in regard to Lycia the remark must rather be reversed.

Footnote 12:

_Phœnicia_, p. 88. London, 1855. See also Smith’s _Dict. of Greek
and Roman Geography_, s. v. Phœnicia and Lycia.

From Phœnicia, which first carried letters to Greece, let us also
pass to Greece. But Greece, in the sense in which I shall use it,
includes not only Greece Proper, but many parts of Asia Minor, as
well as Sicily and the Great Greece of Italy. And here I must
unwillingly be brief, and make the splendid extract from Canon
Marsden, quoted before, in some degree do duty for me. But think for
a minute first on its architecture, I do not mean its earliest
remains, such as the Cyclopian walls and the lion-gate at Mycenæ,
and the so-called treasury of Atreus, which ascend to the heroic
ages or farther back, but its temple architecture. Before I can name
them, images of the Parthenon, the Erectheum, the temple of Jupiter
Panhellenius at Ægina, the temple of Apollo Epicurius at Phigalia or
Bassæ, that of Concord (so-called) at Agrigentum, the most perfect
in Sicily, the three glorious Doric temples of Pæstum, the Ionic
ruins of Branchidæ, will, I am confident, have arisen before your
eyes. Many of us perhaps have seen some of them; if not, we all feel
as though we had. Think of its sepulchral monuments, which are in
the form of temples; and first of Queen Artemisia’s Mausoleum, the
most splendid architectural expression of conjugal affection that
has ever existed, the wonder of the world, with its colossal statue
of her husband and its bas-reliefs by Bryaxis and Scopas and other
principal sculptors; and remember that we have these in our national
museum. Various fine rock-tombs, likewise in the form of temples,
occur in Asia Minor, _e.g._ that of Midas at Nacoleia, the Lion-tomb
at Cnidus, the necropolis at Telmessus.

The transition from temples and tombs to statuary is easy, as these
were more or less decorated with its aid. Although we still possess
the great compositions of some of the first sculptors and
brass-casters, for example, the Quoit-thrower of Myron, the
Diadumenos of Polycleitus, (_i.e._ a youth binding his head with a
fillet in token of an athletic victory,) and perhaps several of the
Venuses of Praxiteles; yet it is needless for me to remind you that
these with few exceptions are considered to be copies, not
originals. But yet there are exceptions. “The extant relics of Greek
sculpture,” says Mr Bunbury, “few and fragmentary as they
undoubtedly are, are yet in some degree sufficient to enable us to
judge of the works of the ancient masters in this branch of art. The
metopes of Selinus, the Æginetan, the Elgin, and the Phigaleian
marbles, to which we now add the noble fragments recently brought to
this country from Halicarnassus, not only serve to give us a clear
and definite idea of the progress of the art of sculpture, but
enable us to estimate for ourselves the mighty works which were so
celebrated in antiquity[13].” Of bronzes of the genuine Greek
period, which we may call their metal statuary, the most beautiful
that occur to my remembrance are those of Siris, now in the British
Museum. They are considered by Brönsted to agree in the most
remarkable and striking manner with the distinctive character of the
school of Lysippus. But most of the extant bronzes are, I believe,
of the Roman period, executed however, like their other best works,
by Greco-Roman artists.

Footnote 13:

_Edinburgh Review_ for 1858, Vol. CVIII. p. 382. I follow common
fame in assigning this article to Mr Bunbury; few others indeed
were capable of writing it. Besides the sculptures named by him we
have in the British Museum a bas-relief by Scopas, as it is
thought, who may also be the author of the Niobid group at
Florence; likewise the Ceres (so-called) from Eleusis, and the
statue of Pan from Athens, now in our Fitzwilliam Museum. For
other antique statues and bronzes and for the later copies see
Müller’s _Ancient Art_, passim.