ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN. 95 



are not so immediately apparent. I can not for a moment pretend 

 to place myself on the same purely scientific level as my distin- 

 guished friend and for many years colleague, Lord Rayleigh, and my 

 claims, such as they are, seem to me to rest on entirely different 

 grounds. Whatever little I may have indirectly been able to do in 

 assisting to promote the advancement of science, my principal ef- 

 forts have now for many years been directed toward attempting to 

 forge those links in the history of the world, and especially of hu- 

 manity, that connect the past with the present, and toward tracing 

 that course of evolution which plays as important a part in the 

 physical and moral development of man as it does in that of the ani- 

 mal and vegetable creation. It appears to me, therefore, that my 

 election to this important post may, in the main, be regarded as a 

 recognition by this association of the value of archaeology as a sci- 

 ence. Leaving all personal considerations out of question, I gladly 

 hail this recognition, which is, indeed, in full accordance with the 

 attitude already for many years adopted by the association toward 

 anthropology, one of the most important branches of true ar- 

 chaeology. 



It is no doubt hard to define the exact limits which are to be 

 assigned to archaeology as a science and archaeology as a branch of 

 history and belles lettres. A distinction is frequently drawn be- 

 tween science on the one hand and knowledge or learning on the 

 other; but translate the terms into Latin and the distinction at once 

 disappears. In illustration of this I need only cite Bacon's great 

 work on the Advancement of Learning, which was, with his own aid, 

 translated into Latin under the title De Augmentis Scientiarum. 

 It must, however, be acknowledged that a distinction does exist be- 

 tween archaeology proper and what, for want of a better word, may 

 be termed antiquarianism. It may be interesting to know the inter- 

 nal arrangements of a Dominican convent in the middle ages; to 

 distinguish between the different moldings characteristic of the 

 principal styles of Gothic architecture; to determine whether an 

 English coin bearing the name of Henry was struck under Henry II, 

 Richard, John, or Henry III; or to decide whether some given edi- 

 fice was erected in Roman, Saxon, or Norman times. But the power 

 to do this, though involving no small degree of detailed knowledge 

 and some acquaintance with scientific methods, can hardly entitle 

 its possessors to be enrolled among the votaries of science. A famil- 

 iarity with all the details of Greek and Roman mythology and cul- 

 ture must be regarded as a literary rather than a scientific qualifica- 

 tion; and yet when among the records of classical times we come 

 upon traces of manners and customs which have survived for gen- 

 erations, and which seem to throw some rays of light upon the dim 



