272 
with a pair of compasses they could de- 
scribe the movements of the heavens and 
fix the rising of the stars; but when, by 
modern astronomy, we can determine the 
heliacal rising of some well-known star 
with which the worship in some given 
ancient temple is known to have been 
connected, and can fix its position on the 
horizon at some particular spot, say, three 
thousand years ago, and then find that 
the axis of the temple is directed exactly 
towards that spot, we have some trust- 
worthy scientific evidence that the temple 
in question must have been erected at a 
date approximately 1100 years B.C. Ifon 
or close to the same site we find that more 
than one temple was erected, each having 
a different orientation, these variations, 
following, as they may fairly be presumed 
to do, the changing position of the rising 
of the dominant star, will also afford a 
guide as to the chronological order of the 
different foundations. The researches of 
Mr. Penrose seem to show that in certain 
Greek temples, of which the date of founda- 
tion is known from history, the actual 
orientation corresponds with that theo- 
retically deduced from astronomical data. 
Sir J. Norman Lockyer has shown that 
what holds good for Greek temples ap- 
plies to many of far earlier date in Egypt, 
though up to the present time hardly a 
sufficient number of accurate observations 
have been made to justify us in foreseeing 
all the instructive results that may be 
expected to arise from astronomy coming 
to the aid of archeology. 
The intimate connection of archeology 
with other sciences is in no case so evident 
as with respect to geology, for, when con- 
sidering subjects such as those I shall 
presently discuss, it is almost impossible to 
say where the one science ends and the 
other begins. 
By the application of geological methods 
many archeological questions relating even 
SCIENCE. 
[N.S. Von. VI. No. 138. 
to subjects on the borders of the historical 
period have been satisfactorily solved. A 
careful examination of the limits of the 
area over which its smaller coins are found 
has led to the position of many an ancient 
Greek city being accurately ascertained ; 
while in England it has only been by treat- 
ing the coins of the ancient Britons, belong- 
ing to a period before the Roman occupa- 
tion, as if they were actual fossils, that the 
territories under the dominion of the 
various kings and princes who struck them 
have been approximately determined. In 
arranging the chronological sequence of 
these coins, the evolution of their types— 
a process almost as remarkable, and cer- 
tainly as well defined, as any to be found 
in nature—has served as an efficient guide. 
I may venture to add that the results ob- 
tained from the study of the morphology 
of this series of coins were published ten 
years before the appearance of Darwin’s 
great work on the ‘ Origin of Species.’ 
When we come to the consideration of 
the relics of the early Iron and Bronze 
Ages the aid of chemistry has, of necessity, 
to be invoked. By its means we are able 
to determine whether the iron of a tool or 
weapon is of meteoritic or volcanic origin, 
or has been reduced from iron-ore, in which 
case considerable knowledge of metallurgy 
would be involved on the part of those who 
made it. With bronze antiquities the na- 
ture and extent of the alloys combined with 
the copper may throw light not only on 
their chronological position, but on the 
sources whence the copper, tin and other 
metals of which they consist were origi- 
nally derived. JI am notaware of there be- 
ing sufficient differences in the analyses of 
the native copper, from different localities 
in the region in which we are assembled, 
for Canadian archeeologists to fix the sources 
from which the metal was obtained which 
was used in the manufacture of the ancient 
tools and weapons of copper that are occa- 
