of tools, weapons, or ornaments, in different materials. A whole page of the history of culture and civilisation may thus have been attached to each of them, and yet, for the sake of adding an object thus deprived of its chief utility to a collection of things rendered equally useless, the specimen is divorced from all its associations, and reduced to the rank of a mere stone implement, while the page of history is cancelled beyond the possibility of recovery.1 On the other hand, had the specimen been preserved, retaining its cluster of facts attached to it, and placed in scientific association with its fellows in a great general collection, not only would this particular page of history have been recovered, but another might still be revealed. It might become evident by comparison that the stone implement with this particular cluster of facts appended to it, is of the same typical form as other stone implements which have similar clusters of facts appended to them, and that these all differ in the same respects from others that have different clusters of facts attached to them. In this way it might be possible to arrive at conclusions as to how far, and in what special particulars, the stone age culture and civilisation differed in different areas. The scientific value of a general collection thus lies altogether outside of the specimens themselves, and consists mainly in its being made exhaustively representative of the area from

1 These remarks do not of course apply to collections which are the fruits of scientific research, systematically conducted, with a special object in view. While science is directly the gainer, the country is not, in the long run, the loser, by such researches as those of Sir Richard Colt Hoare, Mr. Faussett, Mr. Bateman, and Canon Greenwell. The special description of their researches and collections in scientific monographs, copiously illustrated, has rendered them universally available as scientific materials, and they have in this manner become virtually, if not actually, the property of the public. The Faussett collection is now the chief attraction of the Mayer Museum at Liverpool, the Bateman collection is deposited in the museum at Derby, and Canon Greenwell has earned the gratitude of the nation by placing the English portion of his unrivalled collection in the British Museum.

which it is collected, and in the preservation of the whole cluster of facts dependent on the character and associations of each individual specimen.

Towards the accomplishment of this great object, by the collection and preservation of the relics in its museum, and by the illustration of their scientific associations and relations in its Proceedings the Society of Antiquaries has devoted its energies and its means for a hundred years. That it is still far from being accomplished is not to be wondered at, when we consider the magnitude of the undertaking, and the special difficulties that have beset the Society at almost every step in its progress. Remembering that it is a national object, we cease to be surprised that it has not been accomplished without a national effort. But it is gratifying to think that what has been effected is the result, for the most part, of the patriotic co-operation of a generous public-peer and peasant alike contributing to make the collection useful to science and worthy of the country. And in thus recommending that a national effort should now be made to complete the work so worthily begun, it is to be observed, that I recommend nothing with respect to these prehistoric materials, which is not regarded on public grounds as necessary with respect to the historic materials which still exist unutilised throughout the country, since a national effort is now being made to obtain an exhaustive collection of them.

Supposing, then, that we have obtained an exhaustive collection of materials from the area now called Scotland, how are we to extract from them the story of human progress on Scottish soil?

The natural method is so nearly akin to the scientific method, that it may be taken by way of illustration. When a man finds an old implement in some hole in the ground, the first question which occurs to him is, What was this for? and

C

the second, What is it made of? I have supposed that the exhaustive collection which we are to study has been madein other words, that we have before us the great cairn, consisting of all the implements recovered from the soil of Scotland piled into one heap. By following this natural method, and interrogating each of the implements separately as to its purpose, we find no difficulty in getting out all the edge-tools and arranging them in separate heaps, consisting of different types of tools-such as axes, chisels, gouges, saws, knives, and so forth-or types of weapons such as arrow-heads, spearheads, daggers, and so on. During this process of getting out the edge-tools and arranging them by their typical forms, a singular fact will have disclosed itself. In the first of our sorted heaps we have nothing but axes, but we have axes in three materials-stone, bronze, and iron. Every group has the same triple repetition of the tool in the same three materials. This, then, is the second problem-What is the meaning of the fabrication of the same tools in these three materials?

The testimony of universal experience tells that the less suitable and effective material is always supplanted in time by that which is more suitable and effective, after it has become generally procurable. The more unsuitable implement may maintain the struggle for existence for a longer or shorter period, according to circumstances; but when it comes to be a competition of materials, the law is, that the fittest shall survive, and the less fit dies out by a process of degradation of the type and purpose of the implements for which the material continues to be used. It is thus manifest that the types of axes in iron, which exhibit invariably greater specialty of adaptation, and greater effectiveness of construction, than the axes in bronze or in stone, must necessarily have finally supplanted these, even if they had been all three contemporary as to their actual use. On the same principle, it is equally evident that the bronze types, which always show

greater adaptiveness and better construction than those of stone, must necessarily have supplanted them, even if they were originally contemporaneous. Hence it is clear that the iron types, which must of necessity have supplanted both, are the later, the bronze types the middle-and the stone types the earlier forms, of the various classes of edge-tools and weapons that have existed in Scotland; and, therefore, that the triple repetition of the ancient tools in these materials indicates three distinct phases through which our forefathers have passed in their progress towards the existing culture and civilisation.

It is thus established that in Scotland there were three stages of progress towards the existing culture and civilisation, the earliest of which was marked by the use of stone, the second by the use of bronze, and the third by the use of iron. But as it has been previously shown that the ascertained phenomena of man's existence in one region cannot be taken as revealing the unascertained phenomena in any other, we cannot affirm this sequence to be true of any other area, simply because it has been ascertained to be true of Scotland. We may affirm that it is probable that neighbouring areas may present similar phenomena, but we cannot assert that they actually do so until the fact has been ascertained by investigation.

The three stages of progress which are thus established are popularly known as the three Ages of Stone, Bronze, and Iron. These terms are convenient; but it must be remembered that in every science its common terms are used, not in their common acceptation, but in a peculiarly restricted and technical sense. Hence, when we speak of the Stone Age in Scotland, we merely mean the condition and culture which expressed themselves by the exclusive use of natural materials, like stone, or bone, and wood, for implements and weapons. Thus the term Age, in its archæological use, has a totally dis

tinct meaning from the same term in its historical use. In history it usually means a period of time ranging between two known dates. But archæology has no dates of its own-gives no periods that can be expressed in chronological terms. These belong exclusively to history; and, in point of fact, it is impossible to obtain such dates or periods, except from record. It sometimes happens, however, that archæology is able to borrow from history some of its dates and periods; as, for instance, in Scotland, we obtain historical evidence of the commencement and the close of the Roman occupation, and are thus enabled to place its relics between these dates. But, beyond the historic period, it is manifestly impossible, in the nature of things, that archæology should give dates or measurement to the periods of progress whose sequence it establishes; and it cannot be too frequently reiterated, that, by itself and on its own grounds, it never deals with periods of time that are measurable by any known method of science. If any scientific method exists, by which differences of human condition can be translated into equivalent differences of time, it has never yet been formulated; and though the thing is pretended to be done daily, it has yet to be demonstrated that the process by which the alleged results are obtained is a process which is scientific in principle and application.

If it be thus true that archæology does not give measurement to its periods, it is equally true that it does not give dates to its specimens. I have already indicated the method by which it proceeds in dealing with them-(1) By arranging them in groups possessing certain characteristics in common; (2) By determining the special types of which these groups are composed; (3) By determining the geographical range of each special type; (4) By determining its relations to other types within or beyond its own special area; and (5) By determining the sequence of the types existing within the geographical area which is the field of study. The general