﻿Address. 403 



It appears to me, therefore, tliat my election to this 

 important post may, in the main, be regarded as a 

 recognition by tliis Association of the vaUie of Archseology 

 as a science. 



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 towards Anthropology, one of 

 the most important branches of true Arclucology. 



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

 to be assigned to ArclhTology as a science, and Archaeology 

 as a branch of History and Belles Lettres. A distinction 

 is frequently drawn between 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 tliis 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 Augmen- 

 tis Scientiarum. 



It must, however, be acknowledged that a distinction 

 does exist between Archaeology proper, and what, for want 

 of a better word, may be termed Antiquarianisni. It may 

 be interesting to know the internal arrangements of a 

 Dominican convent in the middle ages ; to distinguish 

 between the different mouldings characteristic of the 

 principal styles of Gothic architecture; to determine 

 whether an English coin bearing the name of Henry was 

 struck under Henry II., Kichard, John, or Henry III., or 

 to decide whether some given edifice was erected in 

 Eoman, Saxon, or Norman times. But the power to do 

 this, though involving no small degree of detailed know^- 

 ledge and some acquaintance with scientific methods, can 

 hardly entitle its possessors to be enrolled among the 

 votaries of science. 



A familiarity with all the details of Greek and Eoman 

 mythology and culture must be regarded as a literary 



