longer possible, on account of the total destruction of the materials.1 And, in that day, it will certainly seem to them the strangest and most inexplicable of all the phenomena of the past, that we, who ransack the remotest ends of the earth in order to increase our knowledge and fill our museums, should have looked on with indifference, while every page of the unrecorded history of our own land, and every vestige of the unwritten records of the culture and civilisation of our forefathers, was recklessly effaced. I will not conjecture by what name this impatriotic, unscientific apathy may be called, when the true scientific value of all these things will be widely known and justly appreciated. For the time will come when this knowledge will be as eagerly sought after as it is now regarded with indifference,-when the public purse will be more readily opened for researches in Britain than for researches in Cyprus or in Mesopotamia, and when it will be considered the chief merit of our national museums that

they are national. And why should it not? Is there any scientific, or other reason, which demands that our Archæology should not begin at home? Can we possibly be more interested in the ancient history of other nations than in the ancient history of our own people? Are the sculptured stones of Nineveh really of more importance to us than the sculptured stones of Scotland? Can we possibly have an

1 "It appears that within the last half-century there has been a greater destruction of Irish antiquities, through sheer wantonness, than the storms and frost and lightning of ages could have accomplished. Such acts of vandalism have not been always perpetrated by the unlettered peasant. They have most frequently been committed by contractors for the erection of new buildings, for the sake of the stones, or, for the same reason, by men of station and education."-Wakeman's Handbook of Irish Antiquities, p. 81. Though no one has written so strongly as this with regard to the state of matters in Scotland, there is too much reason for the belief that if it had been written it would scarcely have been an exaggerated view of the general testimony of the authors of the Statistical Accounts of Parishes, and other topographical writers.

interest in the scenes and legends of Egyptian or Assyrian sculptures which we cannot feel for the scenes and legends carved on the monuments of our forefathers? It cannot be the fact that we have greater regard for other men's ancestors than for the memory of our own. I think, if we try to persuade ourselves of this, we shall fail, and if we deal closely with the question, we shall be obliged to confess that Scotland and its antiquities have claims to our attention and regard that are prior to those of all other lands, and all other antiquities. It is true that the antiquities of Assyria, Egypt, Greece, and Rome have also their interest for us in connection with the various developments of literature, science, and art. It is to be observed, however, that they have no greater interest for us than for any other nation which is equally a participant in these benefits. But the antiquities of Scotland belong to us as they belong to no other people. No other nation can divide with us the peculiar interest of them. They are ours alone,—ours, as a special inheritance entailed in the line of our posterity by the law of nature, and unalterably inalienable.

The nature of the materials of archæological science being thus peculiar, the methods of dealing with them must necessarily be also, to some extent, peculiar. The first duty which we owe to them is their preservation, because, as I have indicated, their disappearance would be equivalent to the destruction of a series of national records, which time and the elements had spared, to be deliberately effaced in an age of the highest and most widely-diffused culture. The second duty is the collection of those that are portable, and thus liable to be lost or destroyed. I have said that the study of archæology is based upon the phenomena presented within definite geographical areas, and that the first question in every such area is, What are the facts? The answer to this question can only be given in the concrete, by the formation

of an exhaustive collection from the whole area to be studied. It is clear that the archaeology of Scotland cannot be founded on materials collected from any area which is less than Scotland. In other words, the collection that is to form the basis of the science must be complete and exhaustive, and to be so it must be national. Every nation that has made progress in archæology has begun by the recognition of this as the first principle of its action, and the ultimate aim of its efforts. Such a collection, although established on a permanent footing as a national institution, must always be to a large extent dependent on the generous co-operation of individuals for its completely exhaustive character. But this is a truly national object, to which every one may contribute as circumstances have placed it in his power, without impoverishing himself, and yet with the certainty of enriching posterity with a legacy of materials which they will have come too late to acquire for themselves. For, be it remembered, that the idea of nationality cannot be confined to the existing individuals (who have no monuments and no history), but includes the aggregate in all its relations of space and time. Strip the nation of its monuments and history, and what is there left to be signified by the term national? I think the inference from this is irresistible, and that it is scarcely possible to conceive an object more truly national than that which aims at illustrating the nation's infancy,-preserving the memorials of the unlettered stages of that culture which now speaks in all languages, and the tokens of the primitive condition of that civilisation which now spreads its beneficent influences over all lands.

The collection thus amassed in the National Museum of Antiquities may therefore be regarded as the great cairn destined to perpetuate to all future generations a knowledge of the civilisation and culture, the arts and industries, the social systems and institutions of our forefathers in

the remoter ages. And, as the Society of Antiquaries has acted on the principle which it seeks to inculcate, by making over to the nation as national property the whole of its extensive and valuable collections, it is justified in expecting that every true-hearted Scotsman who may possess similar materials will regard them as a sacred trust, and consider it his duty to add a stone to the cairn, by laying them as his offering on the altar of his country. The collection, as it now exists, is already important in a scientific point of view, and its capabilities are immensely greater than

1 On 6th November 1851 a deed of transfer and agreement was executed, by which the Society of Antiquaries transferred to the Board of Trustees for Manufactures, etc., in Scotland, for behoof of the public, subject to the general direction and control of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, "all and whole the entire collection of antiquities, coins, medals, portraits, manuscripts, and books belonging to the said Society of Antiquaries, with all such additions as may be hereafter made thereto, together with the cabinets, glass-cases, fittings, and others in which the same are contained;" and the Society also became bound, at its own expense, "to transfer and remove the same to the apartments to be provided by the said Commissioners and Trustees." On the other hand, the Board of Manufactures, with the consent and approval of the Treasury, as embodied in the Treasury minute of 1st July 1851, became bound to provide fit and proper accommodation, free of expense, to the Society in the present Royal Institution building in Edinburgh, or other public building in that city, for the preservation and exhibition to the public of the collections of antiquities thus conveyed to them in trust for the public, the charge and management of the collections to remain with the Society, subject to such regulations and directions as might from time to time be prescribed by the Board of Manufactures, with consent and approval of the Treasury, while, in order to provide for the representation of the Board in the management, the Society is bound to elect annually two members of the Board (being also members of the Society) as members of its Council. Since the Museum thus acquired the character of a national institution the collection has been enormously increased in extent and value, while the Society, relieved of the burden of its maintenance, has been enabled to devote its efforts more systematically to the development of the scientific capabilities of the collection. This arrangement has been found to work so well, that it has recently been taken as the model of an agreement concluded in similar terms between the Treasury and the Royal Irish Academy with respect to their Museum.

the opportunities which have been hitherto afforded for their development. But if there were added to it all the specimens that are known to exist in private hands as mere waifs and strays, or in private collections kept in country houses, as odd things found in the neighbourhood, not only would the Museum be largely increased in importance as a National Institution, but it would have taken a long step towards becoming an exhaustive collection. Its scientific value would thus be immeasurably increased, because, as I have shown, the scientific value of a national collection depends entirely on its being completely representative of the area from which it is collected.

The true value of any collection must always be measured by the extent to which it can be made useful in promoting the increase of knowledge; and hence it is neither the number of its specimens, the variety of types they represent, nor even their fineness or rarity, that constitutes its chief scientific value. In point of fact, the majority of small, uncatalogued, and undescribed collections are made on principles which are not conducive to their scientific value and utility. Take the case of a collector of stone implements, who amasses a few hundreds of specimens. He has made a collection, indeed, which has an imposing appearance, and contains an admirable selection of different forms and varieties of type. But at what cost has it been made? I mean at what cost to science? Is it the chief object of the science to amass stone implements? Is it not rather to gather up and preserve the record of facts associated with them? Had their actual associations been preserved, each of these implements would have had a cluster of facts attached to it. One may have been associated with one set of funereal customs, another with another. One may have been associated with a particular form of urn or a peculiar method of constructing a cairn, and another with a peculiar assemblage