LECTURE I.

(14TH OCTOBER 1879.)

THE MEANS OF OBTAINING A SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THE

ARCHEOLOGY OF SCOTLAND.

ARCHEOLOGY, or the science of things that are old, embraces the systematic knowledge of the forms, dimensions, composition, associations, and geographical distribution of the objects which it studies. This knowledge, which is precise in its nature, and is derived from examination and comparison of the objects themselves, forms the groundwork of the science. It is purely the product of observation, and there neither is, nor can be, anything of a speculative or hypothetical nature included in it. Upon this groundwork of exact knowledge there may be raised a superstructure of conclusions as to the relations of these objects to ancient conditions and customs of human life, which they more or less clearly disclose; and in this, its widest scope, archæology aims at producing a history of man by his works, of art by its monuments, of culture by its manifestations, and of civilisation by its developments.

But there are two conditions involved which have to be considered with reference to the practical realisation of aims so comprehensive. It is manifest that for a study so vast in its range, and dealing with materials so diverse in character as the products of human industry, art, culture, religion, and

B

civilisation, in every past age and in every clime, no individual industry could suffice for the collection of a sufficient body of materials, and no single life would afford the time. requisite for their examination. Thus, although there is not, and cannot be, in the present state of our knowledge, any such thing as a general science of archæology applicable to the world as a whole, it may be possible, by limiting the area of investigation, to acquire a systematic knowledge of the remains of man's occupation of one particular section of the earth's surface. But as it is certain that the natural environments and the actual conditions of human life have always differed to a greater or less extent in different regions, it follows that the facts which are ascertained regarding them, and the conclusions drawn from them, in one area, do not necessarily apply to any other. It would therefore be unscientific to assume (as is so often done) that the ascertained phenomena of man's existence in one region can be taken as revealing the unascertained phenomena of his existence in another region; and hence, in whatever locality we may commence our investigations, the first question must always be-What are the facts?

Beginning thus with the examination of the materials.

1 Why should we expect the prehistoric portion of the history of mankind to be more easily dealt with than the historic portion? No man has yet been bold enough to attempt the construction of a systematic history of the world, compiled from authentic records of all nations. Yet this would be an easy task compared with the construction of a general system of archæology deduced from the actual remains of all past races. When a number of limited areas have been exhaustively investigated, and the results placed on record, it may be possible to proceed a step farther, and to formulate general conclusions applicable to wider areas, such as Europe, or Eastern or Western Asia, or Africa or America, but at present no body of materials exists from which the archæology of any one of these larger areas may be studied systematically, and until this is possible for all these great areas, it is manifestly impossible that any general conclusions can be arrived at, which can be applicable to the world as a whole.

existing within the area which forms the field of our study, it is further necessary, when these are exhausted, to proceed to the examination of the materials existing within the neighbouring areas, for the purpose of comparing them, determining typical relationships, and establishing the limitation of typical forms to such areas as are characterised by them. In other words, beginning with geographical areas established by physical conditions, we proceed to the determination of archæological areas, which are disclosed by the distribution of typical forms among the products of human industry, art, and institutions.

But if it be true that the study of archæology is the study of phenomena which differ in different areas of the earth's surface, it is equally true that it is also the study of phenomena which have differed at different times within the

same area.

It would be difficult-if, indeed, it be not impossible-to point to any portion of the earth's surface that has remained from the earliest times unaffected by movements of populations, migrations of tribes, invasions and colonisations, or other changes not dependent on purely physical conditions. It follows from this that there will be, and as matter of fact it is known that there are, found in almost any given area products that are archæologically characteristic of different and even of distant areas, imported by wars, by commerce, by colonisation, or other movements of population. These are readily separated from the materials proper to the country in which they are found, by their difference from purely native types; and they are as readily assigned to their true sources by their identity with the types native to the region from which they were derived. It is evident that each geographical group of relics will differ from the others, as the peoples themselves differed in customs, in religion, in culture, and civilisation; and it is equally evident that

changes of customs and religion, and progress in culture and civilisation, also produce differences which greatly alter the character of the relics of the same people in different ages. It follows from this that whatever may be the area selected for investigation, we must be prepared to recognise among the materials which it presents one great group of relics, which I shall term the principal group, embracing all the types that are indigenous; and also other groups, embracing types that are not indigenous, imported from other areas, which I will designate derived groups, because their parent group exists in some different and possibly distant area. But still further, in the principal group of relics indigenous to the area under investigation, we must be prepared to find subordinate groups, characterised by differentiation of types in respect of material, form, and specialty of purpose, because the progress of culture and civilisation has always been characterised by what is now called division of labour, with reference to the aggregate, although, in its initial stages, it is simply increasing specialty of individual effort, which naturally suggests the devising of separate implements specially contrived for separate purposes. It is clear, therefore, that in any given area we may expect to meet with a variety of objects, separable into groups, composed of types which differ from each other from two causes-1st, Because they may be products of different areas; and 2d, Because they may be products of different stages of progress within the same area. Again, the investigation of the human occupation of any given area naturally resolves itself into two sections-the more recent, in which we have the assistance and confirmation of record; and the more remote, in which we have no such assistance or confirmation, but are dependent entirely on scientific deduction from materials that are not necessarily of the nature of records. But the archæology of the historic period and the archæology of the non-historic period do in

fact constitute two sections of the same investigation, conducted by the same processes in both cases, and the results in both depending on the application of the same principles. It has been ably demonstrated by Dr. Arthur Mitchell, my predecessor in the Lectureship, that "in drawing conclusions as to the capacity and culture of individuals or of aggregates, there cannot be one method for prehistoric man and another for existing man." We do not therefore begin by postulating a condition of human life in Scotland that is unknown to experience, nor can we end by deducing this.

All voyages of discovery commence from a known point of departure, and all descriptions of unknown regions are intelligible only in so far as the objects and circumstances that are described are comparable to others which are already known. We may grope our way back into the darkness of the past by the light reflected from the present; but we cannot project ourselves into the unknown, or proceed to describe it without reference to anything that is known. And when we consider that we ourselves are but links in the long chain of human existences, reaching from the remotest past to the living present, and that all our systems, institutions, and environments have grown out of those of previous ages, we shall the more readily see how close is the relationship between all that has been and all that now exists in the country we inhabit. As we have derived our being from those who have gone before, so also the institutions which environ us and shape our lives owe their existence to those that preceded them; and they differ from those of the past in no other sense and no greater degree than we differ from the men of the past. No doubt it is true that the existing culture and civilisation of Scotland do differ greatly from the culture and civilisation of the same area in primeval times; but is the nature of the difference such that it cannot be extinguished by adding to the earlier result the products