RELATIONS OF CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 597 



if instead they had mapped, say, all the architectural remains in 

 Attica, which, like everything of this kind, are subject to sudden 

 alteration and disintegration, while the folds of mountain and valley 

 will long outlast our day. In all classic lands one is moved to clamor 

 for, first of all, a fixation through scientific maps of the perishable 

 relics which still remain. None the less was the before-mentioned 

 survey of the country most certainly a useful achievement. Even 

 should the significance of the soil for civilization be overestimated, 

 certainly this does no harm, and archaeology will do well always to 

 support whatever is destined to further the knowledge of the geo- 

 graphy and topography of classic lands. Indeed, so far as topography 

 includes the existing monuments, so far is it but a branch of 

 archaeology itself. 



Another close neighbor of classical archaeology is to be noted in 

 Oriental philology, and especially in Egyptian and early Asiatic 

 research. These branches of science are still young, and have there- 

 fore not yet so fully divided off into specialties as the earlier science 

 of classical antiquity. Linguistic study is here still one with that of 

 history, culture, and art. Naturally here, too, the word was the first 

 object of inquiry, and the image was for long by many only regarded 

 if it had historical content, and only for the sake of that. Only very 

 lately do the Oriental remains begin to be dealt with as works of art 

 and to this end classical archaeology has helped much; but all 

 too often still must one deplore in the case of Orientalists, even of 

 those engaged in excavation, that their eye is not yet sufficiently 

 trained to see artistic forms. 



The late discoveries in regard to primitive culture in Greece, when 

 Crete was the centre of authority and fashion, have had especial 

 influence in closely linking classical and Oriental archaeology. That 

 civilization of 2000 years is. c. is only to be understood on the basis 

 of a knowledge of Egypt and the Orient. We recognize the close 

 connection with Egypt especially, but at the same time the full 

 independence and characteristic quality of that so-called Cretan- 

 Mycenaean culture. On the other hand we find in the Archaic-Greek 

 epoch of the eighth and seventh centuries an Oriental tendency in 

 art. emanating from Ionia, which is directly dependent on its models. 

 even if it soon freely moulds them to its own fashion. The time is 

 past when the postulate of Oriental influence on Grecian territory 

 was regarded as a sacrilege against Hellas. Classical archaeology 

 can solve its problem only in close connection and in constant 

 sympathy with that of the Orient; and no more operating with the 

 vague word "Oriental." as was formerly so much the favorite practice, 

 but instead a thorough-going intimacy with the rich, complex art- 

 development of Asia Minor and Egypt, must be required even of the 

 classical archaeologist. 



