222 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE 



to be compared with the certainties of legal proof. Let 

 us see then what legal proof is in important cases. In 

 one case a will was lost, and the mere memory of its 

 contents, stated by a survivor who had assisted in writing 

 it, was accepted as sufficient proof of what had been 

 in it, and the property was distributed accordingly. In 

 another case property was left by A to B, or failing 

 B to C ; B also made a will leaving it to D. A and B 

 were killed together in an accident, and the slightest 

 observation of which moved last, determined whether 

 C or D had the property. Again, there are innumerable 

 cases of setting a will aside because of the testator 

 not being of a sound mind for disposing of property ; 

 and various assertions of irrelevant facts by various 

 interested parties are held to reveal the true mental 

 capacity of a person to a judge and jury. In a murder 

 trial the question of whether one or both of the assailants 

 were guilty was held proved by the deceased having 

 been tied by two different forms of knots. In another 

 trial the mere presumption due to concealing a body and 

 dealing with the property of a murdered person was 

 enough to hang a man. Such are some of the evidences 

 which are held good in law to settle questions of life and 

 property. 



Happily archaeology is relieved from the terrible 

 dilemma of being bound to come to a conclusion at 

 once, as the law has to do. Questions can be left 

 pending, and it is not peremptorily needful to act one 

 way or another. An open mind can be kept on difficult 

 and obscure points ; and a matter can be discussed in 

 fresh lights, without keeping a prisoner standing in the 

 dock the whole time. Legal conclusions are often wrong; 

 though, as the law can do no wrong, a free pardon is 

 all the sufferer gets when his innocence is proved. But 



