593 CLASSICAL ART 



A complete contrast to Oriental science is given in another subject, 

 not less closely related to classical archaeology, that of the so-called 

 prehistory. While in the preceding the written monument predom- 

 inates, here it is completely lacking; study of the prehistoric period 

 is turned merely to finds without writing, and must seek to trace out 

 the historic development from these alone. This science, too, is 

 young, and strictly scientific treatment therein extremely recent; 

 as its subject-matter is relatively accessible and possesses a certain 

 charm for every one, it has given occupation to many dilettantes, 

 whose work, however, w r as often of the greatest use as regards the 

 collection of material. Through just such a dilettante, the Homeric 

 enthusiast and fortunate treasure-seeker, Heinrich Schliemann, was 

 classical archaeology forced, in spite of its reluctance, to affiliate 

 itself to the heretofore disdained prehistoric study. Since then 

 classical archaeology has learned from the method of exact observa- 

 tion elaborated in prehistoric study to make use even of the humblest 

 finds, and to bring the discoveries of classic soil into a wider relation, 

 and very often thereby to attain for the first time to a real historical 

 understanding of them. Thus, for instance, the bronzes from the 

 ancient treasure-strata of Olympia can only be understood by aid of 

 the finds which have been made and studied in the prehistoric field, 

 and the recognition of the close relation between a great part of that 

 Olympic treasure and those of the so-called Hallstatt period in the 

 north and the northwest of the Greek country, is important for the 

 whole conception of early Greek history. The early period of Italy, 

 further, is for the first time at all comprehensible, since classical 

 archaeology has joined hands with prehistoric study. It is a matter 

 of course that, for this last, in turn, the alliance has also had the 

 happiest results. The two sciences will in the future seek to come 

 into ever closer touch with one another. The science of prehistoric 

 times must strive to make its material historical, that is, to link it 

 with groups of finds which can be historically fixed, just as classical 

 arid Oriental archaeology deal with theirs. And the latter had 

 learned from the former, on the other hand, to work up with care 

 not only the literary and the aesthetically beautiful specimen, but 

 also the quite insignificant ones, the humble potsherds and small 

 remains of metal utensils, and to apply thorn to the building-up of 

 the history of ancient culture and art. Classical archaeology, too, was 

 first turned through its connection with prehistoric science to exact 

 observation of the details of the finds of minor antiquities, whereby 

 the most important conclusions were reached. In Italy Wolfgang 

 Helbig was the first of the classical archaeologists who followed this 

 method, and he was able forthwith, by simply proving authentic the 

 material found in the Ktruscan tombs, to refute the thesis of the late 

 origin of the Greek vases, which Brunn had laid down. 



