■ 
 
 LO 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 Cr- 
 
 _ 
 
 OvJ 
 
 ■ 
 
 CJ 
 
 1 
 
 >- 
 
LIBRARY 
 
 University of California. 
 
 RECEIVED BY EXCHANGE 
 
 Class 
 
ARCHAEOLOGY 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES RIGNALL WHEELER 
 
 PROFESSOR OF GREEK ARCHAEOLOGY AND ART 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 UNIVERSITY UBRARY, 
 «i«KEL£y, CAUfORNlA. 
 
 THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 1908 
 
ARCHAEOLOGY 
 
 A LECTURE DELIVERED AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 IN THE SERIES ON SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY AND ART 
 
 JANUARY 8, 1908 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/archaeologyalectOOwheerich 
 
ARCHAEOLOGY 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES RIGNALL WHEELER 
 
 PROFESSOR OF GREEK ARCHAEOLOGY AKD ART 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 UNIVERSITY UBRARY, 
 e.KKELEY.CAUFMNlA. 
 
 ■^ Of THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 1908 
 

 Copyright, 1908, 
 By THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
 Set up, and published February, 1908. 
 
ARCHAEOLOGY 
 
 If any layman were to ask a number of archaeologists to 
 give, on the spur of the moment, a definition of archaeology, 
 I suspect that such a person might find the answers rather 
 confusing. He would, perhaps, sympathize with Socrates 
 who, when he hoped to learn from the poets and artisans 
 something about the arts they practised, was forced to go 
 away with the conviction that, though they might them- 
 selves be able to accomplish something, they certainly could 
 give no clear account to others of what they were trying to 
 do. If one considers some of the current definitions of 
 archaeology, one finds them often so inclusive that the great 
 subject of history seems forced into a subordinate position, 
 or else history may seem to differ from archaeology only 
 in the fact that it may treat of present events, while archae- 
 ology deals with the past. Thus one of the greatest classi- 
 cal archaeologists of the last generation, the late Sir Charles 
 Newton, defines archaeology as the scientific study of the 
 human past, and describes its three-fold subject matter as 
 oral, written and monumental. Such a definition is of 
 course enormously inclusive and, as might be expected, it 
 has hardly found general acceptance. As archaeological 
 study has advanced, the tendency has been to confine its 
 subject matter to the material remains of man's past — 
 material remains being thought of as a sort of antithesis to 
 literary remains, or written documents, which fall spe- 
 cifically within the domain of history. There must, how* 
 
 5 
 
 203480 
 
ever, often be cases where a written record bears so close a 
 relation to a material monument of the past as to become 
 wholly archaeological in character, and, on tiie other hand, 
 there may be material monuments which are so closely bound 
 up with the history of a people that they cannot be thought of 
 as separate from that history. So a general definition is rather 
 apt to break down when it comes to details and we have to 
 be content with some inexactness. Such a state of affairs is 
 pretty sure to arise in connection with any subject which 
 deals specifically with man's varied social activities, and 
 the material objects which result from his activities will 
 naturally be as varied as the activities themselves. It is 
 indeed an old question whether we ought to call such sub- 
 jects as archaeology and history sciences at all, since they 
 do not admit of the logical analysis which we like to associ- 
 ate with the term. There seems, however, no great gain in 
 so limiting the connotation of the word "science," and at 
 any rate archaeology and history may certainly be studied 
 scientifically. 
 
 For practical purposes, then, we may accept such a defi- 
 nition of archaeology as has been given in Hogarth's "Au- 
 thority and Archaeology," namely that it is the "science 
 of the treatment of the material remains of the human 
 past." But even such a definition assigns to the subject an 
 enormous domain, and we at once see that it must inevi- 
 tably be broken up into innumerable specialties. In the 
 first place, there are the ethnic divisions in bewildering 
 variety. Among primitive peoples, even when they may 
 dwell in different parts of the earth, the study of archae- 
 ology may take on a not very dissimilar character, though, 
 on the other hand, climate and race often introduce great 
 variety. But when a people has reached a rather high 
 state of civilization, as the Egyptians, for example, and the 
 Greeks did, the situation is very different. Here we are 
 confronted with all the complexity which comes from elab- 
 
 6 
 
orate social organization and high artistic development, 
 and this organization and development will assume differ- 
 ent forms of course, in accordance with determining condi- 
 tions of race, inheritance and history. We may say that a 
 person who is studying the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico 
 and Arizona and one who is studying some problem in 
 Athenian life of the fifth or fourth century b.c. are both 
 working at archaeology, but it is obvious that their activi- 
 ties are of a very different nature. The archaeology of the 
 one stands very close to anthropology, that of the other to 
 the history of an advanced civilization and art. Such con- 
 trasts in the nature of the study suggest the two-fold di- 
 rection which it naturally takes, according as it is concerned 
 with peoples that are known through the medium of litera- 
 ture and history, or with such as have left behind them only 
 the unwritten records of their art or handicraft. In the 
 latter case, archaeology is of course a much more independ- 
 ent branch of learning than in the former, but its conclu- 
 sions would naturally often be much strengthened, if they 
 could be supported or corrected by the evidence of written 
 documents; in the former case, it becomes more or less a 
 branch of history, in proportion to the extent and the defi- 
 niteness of the knowledge which the written records fur- 
 nish. The archaeology of primitive peoples naturally deals 
 with social conditions that involve no written records, but 
 there are instances where we are forced to gain our con- 
 ception of highly developed civilizations almost entirely 
 through the material remains which survive them. The 
 study of Egypt is an example of archaeological work of 
 this kind, for its written records are of course chiefly sup- 
 plementary in character. 
 
 It is interesting to contrast the conception which is 
 formed of the civilization of ancient Egypt with that 
 which may be had of ancient Greece where archaeological 
 study goes hand in hand with the extensive knowledge that 
 
 r 
 
comes from written history and from a great literature. In 
 spite of the enormous amount of archaeological material in 
 Egypt, the idea which can be gained of the life of the 
 ancient Egyptians seems shadowy and external to us in 
 the absence of extended written records. We may see evi- 
 dence of dynastic changes, of an all-powerful hierarchy, of 
 attempted religious reforms, of the management of great 
 agricultural estates in the Nile valley, and we may know 
 with astonishing minuteness the material implements and 
 setting of everyday life, but we do not know that life in 
 any really sympathetic way. Its thoughts, its ideals, its 
 strivings are lost to us in the lapse of centuries. With 
 Greece, on the other hand, it is very different. Archae- 
 ologically it is certainly not better known to us than Egypt, 
 but we may go with the (Greek into his political assemblies, 
 to his law-courts and his market-place, to his theatre and his 
 athletic games. We can hear him talk of his art and his 
 religion and his poetry. In other words we can know him 
 in almost the way that we may know a contemporary civi- 
 lization. 
 
 I shall have more to say about the part that archaeology 
 plays in the vivid picture we get of Greece, but just now I 
 merely want to emphasize the difference between the type 
 of the study when it is concerned with a people that has left 
 written records, and with one that has not done so— be- 
 tween the independent archaeology and that which is a 
 branch of history. 
 
 It is, however, not solely through differences in race and 
 inheritance, or by reason of the different stages of man's 
 advancement in civilization, or because of the presence or 
 absence of written records, thatrthe nature of archaeological 
 study tends to vary so greatly. When any one civilization 
 is sufficiently advanced to become complex, its archae- 
 ological records naturally grow so varied that the study of 
 them branches out in very different directions, and hence 
 
 8 
 
I UNIVERSITY 1 
 
 tends to become specialized, even within the boundaries of 
 the civilization itself. To investigate the various domestic 
 arrangements in a Mycenaean palace or the drainage of a 
 house in Pompeii is a work the quality of which is different 
 from an investigation that brings the student into con- 
 tact with the development of higher forms of artistic 
 expression. It is not only that an aesthetic element enters 
 at this point into the study; there is also a higher intel- 
 lectual quality in it. I would not seem to belittle at all the 
 humbler material affairs of life through which the great 
 body of archaeological knowledge must be built up. Under 
 any truly scientific ideal, all these things must be studied 
 in minute detail, for though they may have little inherent 
 importance, they are of great value in rendering our con- 
 ception of a past civilization real and sympathd:ic ; but they 
 are subordinate facts. When, however, the student is 
 brought into contact with the artistic products of some 
 gifted people, the subjects at which he works do have an 
 importance that is inherent, and it is when archaeology 
 takes this direction that it is of real educational value. It 
 becomes the foundation for the history of art, and passes 
 imperceptibly into this latter subject. This is the kind of 
 archaeology which has its centres of study chiefly in uni- 
 versities and museums, though it of course ultimately owes 
 its existence and much of its progress to the worker in the 
 field. 
 
 This fact upon which I have thus far laid such special 
 emphasis, namely the very diverse character of archae- 
 ological study, will, I hope, make it plain that no ordinary 
 individual could possibly discuss the details of the science 
 as a whole with any real authority. Certainly I cannot at- 
 tempt to do so, and I shall therefore confine myself from 
 now on to a presentation of some phases of Greek archae- 
 ology which, though they will of course relate to a single 
 ethnic division of the science, may nevertheless be thought 
 
 9 
 
of as somewhat typical of the whole. Apart, however, from 
 the obvious necessity of discussing the portions of a subject 
 which fall within the range of one's knowledge, Greek 
 archaeology is a good branch to choose because of its un- 
 usual diversity. There are few types of archaeological 
 study which may not find illustration within its ample 
 range. 
 
 In the prehistoric period, which includes the so-called 
 Mycenaean civilization with its Aegean and, in Crete, Mi- 
 noan background reaching well into neolithic times, we have 
 the type of archaeology which is not assisted by written 
 records. To be sure, written characters, hieroglyphic and 
 linear, on seals and clay tablets, were known during a por- 
 tion of this time, but even if they are eventually deciphered, 
 they could not do more than throw some light on the other 
 archaeological evidence, as is the case with the written 
 records of the Egyptians. Thus the archaeology of this 
 early time in Greek lands is of the independent kind, and 
 some of its problems belong to the anthropologist. After 
 the Mycenaean civilization passes away, about the twelfth 
 century b.c.^ there succeeds a period when the art is more 
 primitive than that of the Mycenaeans and is characterized 
 by certain marked schemes of geometric decoration. It 
 appears to be a time of much migration among tribes and 
 of a considerable mixing up of the various elements which 
 became more or less closely amalgamated in the rise of the 
 Greek people. In this so-called "Geometric" period we are 
 still in the domain of prehistoric archaeology, for not till its 
 close, which we may place roughly in the eighth century 
 B.C., do we begin to get written records and to see the 
 dawn of the literature of historic Greece. The rise of the 
 Greek Epic, to be sure, goes back farther than this time 
 and the origin of its traditions is probably to be found in 
 the Mycenaean period. I shall allude to this question 
 again ; it need not detain us now. 
 
 10 
 
With the close, then, of the "Geometric" period we come 
 to the time when history and hterature begin to play an in- 
 creasingly important role in the forming of our conception 
 of Greek civilization. Archaeology is no longer independ- 
 ent, but it does serve to make our idea of Greek life vastly 
 clearer, as I hope to be able to show. It now tends, in ac- 
 cordance with the high artistic gifts of the Greeks, to merge 
 itself in the history of art, a union which of course becomes 
 practically complete where the highest manifestations of 
 Greek art are concerned. Thus the different forms of ar- 
 chaeological study are very fully illustrated in Greek lands. 
 
 Let me now seek in a somewhat general way to point out 
 how our conception of ancient Greek civilization has been 
 made clearer by archaeological study, and after that I will 
 give a few definite examples, chosen from the whole field, 
 which may serve to make the general view somewhat 
 clearer. I should be glad, did the time allow, to give an 
 account of the interesting and picturesque history of this 
 branch of Greek study, but I can merely touch upon this 
 point. 
 
 The beginning reaches as far back as the journeys 
 in the Levant of Cyriac of Ancona, who visited the Floren- 
 tine Duke of Athens in the fifteenth century, and we may 
 trace the growth of the study through the establishment in 
 Greece of the French missionaries, Jesuit and Capuchin, 
 and through the work of many travellers, chiefly French 
 and English, who gradually spread abroad a knowledge of 
 the monuments in western Europe. Toward the close of 
 the seventeenth century came the melancholy bombard- 
 ment of Athens and the destruction of the Parthenon by 
 the troops of the Westphalian Graf von Konigsmarck, who 
 was in the employ of the Venetian Republic, then at war 
 with the Turks, for the latter were at that time in posses- 
 sion of Athens. The officers brought back to their homes 
 accounts of what they saw, some of which were illustrated 
 
 11 
 
by their sketches, and this again served to spread a knowl- 
 edge of Greece. Curiosity to see the country grew, and 
 in the eighteenth century there were more travellers, 
 among whom Stuart, a Scotchman, and Revett, an Eng- 
 lishman, hold the first place, for they stayed many months 
 in Athens and brought back with them drawings, which, 
 though they were not published till many years afterward, 
 were the first actual demonstration to western Europe of 
 the magnificence of the Greek remains. In this same 
 eighteenth century, Winckelmann was laying the founda- 
 tions for the study of Greek art by his theoretic work, so 
 that early in the last century the scholars of Europe had 
 begun to long for original specimens of Greek sculpture 
 which might take the place in the study of art of the Ro- 
 man copies in Italian museums. The interest of private 
 collectors, already of course awakened, then grew apace, 
 with the result that valuable antiques were gradually gath- 
 ered together, especially in England, and these have now in 
 many cases passed into the possession of museums. Then 
 came the revelation of the Elgin marbles, which were not 
 bought for the British Museum till some time after they 
 had reached England. To a modern student it is amazing 
 to think of the testimony before the Parliamentary com- 
 mittee which decided on their purchase. Nothing can show 
 more clearly the lack there was up to that time of any real 
 knowledge of Greek originals. As soon as a clear concep- 
 tion of the art of the Phidian period was gained through 
 these wonderful marbles, they became a kind of central 
 point from which archaeologists could build up an idea of 
 the course of the sculptor's art in Greece both backward 
 and forward. Thus by the middle of the last century 
 everything was ready for the great excavations which have 
 been the characteristic of the past fifty years and which 
 have created the splendid museums of Athens, Olympia 
 and Delphi, and have enriched those of western Eu- 
 
 12 
 
rope and of our own country, not only with many fine 
 specimens of sculpture, but also .with no less interesting 
 and important examples of the industrial art of the Greeks. 
 Finally, what is perhaps historically the most picturesque 
 feature in the growth of Greek archaeology, and in itself 
 an amazing fact, the leading nations of the world, France, 
 Germany, our own country through leading universities 
 and colleges, England through friends of Hellenic study, 
 and Austria, have made Athens once more a university 
 town by the establishment there of national archaeological 
 schools. 
 
 From this brief historical digression I will now return to 
 consider first very generally how our conception of Greek 
 civilization has been changed by the growth of archae- 
 ological study. It has of course been commonly recognized 
 that in the work of the Greeks are to be found the begin- 
 nings of nearly every branch of intellectual activity in the 
 western world, and that they in large measure marked out 
 the categories in which this activity has shown itself. If 
 we want an example from very near home, it is only neces- 
 sary to call attention to the extraordinarily Platonic method 
 of thought which characterized the first of this series of 
 lectures. The world of scholars has certainly not failed to 
 acknowledge its debt to Greece. But along with this am- 
 ple acknowledgement, there grew up among persons less 
 well-informed, a popular conception of the ancient Greeks, 
 and this conception, which has been singularly widespread, 
 is very inconsistent with the view that they could have 
 made any large contribution to the spiritual life of man- 
 kind. Professor Gilbert Murray, in a recently published 
 lecture, has described most concisely this popular and 
 perverted view to be "a conception of Hellenism as rep- 
 resenting some easy-going half animal form of life, un- 
 troubled by conscience or ideals, or duties, and the Greeks 
 as a gay, unconscious, hedonistic race, possessing the some- 
 
 13 
 
what superficial merits of extreme good looks and a 
 mythically fine climate." "There is no reason," Professor 
 Murray continues, "to suppose the Greeks miraculously 
 handsome, any more than to suppose that there is no dirty 
 weather in the Aegean." It need not now concern us how 
 this false idea arose or whether Professor Murray is right, 
 as he very likely is, in believing that it grew up through the 
 attribution to the Greeks by ascetic Christian apologists of 
 qualities which afforded an antithesis to their own views 
 and which they erroneously made synonymous with "Pa- 
 ganism." It seems to be one of those perverted notions 
 which often appear in history to obscure our vision of the 
 truth. However that may be, this false view of the Greeks 
 has existed, and one of the things which is putting an end 
 to it, or which has already done so, is the more vivid con- 
 ception of ancient Greece that archaeology has brought. 
 The setting of our former picture has become much more 
 complete. When one is able to see the products of a civili- 
 zation in large mass face to face, to become familiar not 
 only with the works of its greater minds, but with those of 
 its humble handicraftsmen as well, one may enter so fully 
 and with such sympathy into the life of the people as to be 
 pretty effectually protected against false and one-sided 
 judgments about them. To take but a single example: 
 Within recent years a large number of sepulchral monu- 
 ments have been uncovered which have been well published 
 in an extensive corpus. It would indeed be a person of 
 dull imagination who could go through the halls of the 
 museum at Athens, where there is an extensive series of 
 these monuments, or who could study the reproductions of 
 the corpus, without having a lively sense of that kinship 
 which we all feel in the presence of human sorrow. 
 
 There has been, too, another mistaken view of the Greeks, 
 not this time ethical in purport, which has tended to make 
 them seem exceptional in their development, and thus to 
 
 14 
 
stand rather apart from other men. This is the idea of a 
 very sudden efflorescence of their art in all its perfection, not 
 at all after the manner of most hmnan things. Archaeol- 
 ogy, however, has shown that the growth of artistic skill, 
 though no doubt rapid, was not abnormally so, and the 
 view which reason should formerly have shown to be the 
 true one is now not open to question. 
 
 It would be possible, of course, to pursue this line of 
 thought much further, but it will better meet the present 
 need, I think, if I turn to the consideration of a few of 
 the niore important examples of recent development in 
 Greek archaeology, and try to show briefly what their 
 scientific significance is. Such a presentation may, I hope, 
 serve to illustrate, at least by implication, some of the gen- 
 eral views that have been expressed, and may suggest more 
 concretely the typical quality of Greek archaeological 
 work. 
 
 The beginning is of course naturally to be made with the 
 prehistoric time. The study here has taken on a scientific 
 character comparatively recently, since until Schliemann's 
 excavations the requisite material for study was not at 
 hand. I will not dwell upon the picturesque and interest- 
 ing incidents in this remarkable man's career, which led 
 him to begin his famous work at Hissarlik with the idea of 
 finding the Homeric Troy. It is easy to smile now at the 
 unscientific character of some of his ideas, but there is noth- 
 ing to excite anything except admiration when one marks 
 the progress in the quality of his work, and sees his abound- 
 ing enthusiasm and energy and the large-minded way in 
 which he sought the best advice and help he could get. He 
 certainly found Troy— or a place corresponding to it— 
 though his first interpretation of the excavations was mis- 
 taken, and he opened the wonderful graves at Mycenae 
 which amazed the world with their wealth of gold. Later 
 in his work he had the wisdom and good fortune to avail 
 
 15 
 
himself of the cooperation of Professor Wilhelm Dorpf eld, 
 who with consummate skill has continued and perfected the 
 work which Schliemann began. Tiryns too was soon un- 
 covered, with results that were architecturally of especial 
 importance, and the excavations at Hissarlik, which had 
 really never been dropped, were continued further. There 
 was a difficulty in the fact that the objects found at My- 
 cenae did not correspond with those found in the second 
 stratum of the Hissarlik excavations, which Schliemann 
 had believed to be the Homeric Troy. The trouble was 
 soon cleared up, though Schliemann did not live to know 
 the conclusion of the whole matter. The so-called sixth 
 city at Hissarlik, a larger and more important settlement, 
 turned out to be the one which corresponded with the exca- 
 vations at Mycenae and Tiryns. Schliemann's work has 
 been continued by Dorpfeld and by the Greek Archae- 
 ological Society, chiefly under the direction of Tsountas, 
 and thus gradually a large amount of material to illustrate 
 what has come to be called the Mycenaean civilization has 
 been gathered together. Many lesser sites were explored, 
 and it became evident that this civilization extended very 
 generally over the mainland of Greece. Such, in brief, 
 has been the first stage in the investigation of prehistoric 
 Greece. 
 
 The second stage will always be associated with the 
 island of Crete and with the name of Dr. Arthur Evans, 
 though many others have had a hand in the work, notably 
 an able company of Italian archaeologists, the British 
 School at Athens, the English archaeologist, Mr. D. G. 
 Hogarth, our own country-woman, Miss Boyd, now Mrs. 
 Hawes, and some others. 
 
 Until recently the island of Crete, which appears to have 
 been the chief centre of the Mycenaean civilization, was 
 politically in too unsettled a condition for very extended 
 archaeological work. This, however, did not prevent Dr. 
 
 16 
 
Evans from studying it, and largely through his great 
 knowledge of the small objects, especially the gems, which 
 illustrate the early art of the Aegean, and which have been 
 found in many places, he was led to form conclusions in 
 regard to the probable results of excavation in Crete, 
 which, now that they have been abundantly confirmed, are 
 seen to constitute an extraordinary example of archae- 
 ological penetration. Dr. Evans' excavations at Cnosus, 
 near Candia, are the most extensive that have thus far 
 been prosecuted in Crete, but those of the Italians are 
 extremely important also, and they have yielded some 
 of the most interesting specimens of Mycenaean objects. 
 The excavations at Cnosus, however, have revealed a very 
 long chronological sequence, which appears to begin as 
 early as the earlier Egyptian dynasties, toward the begin- 
 ning, that is, of the fourth millennium B.C., unless indeed a 
 still earlier dynastic dating be accepted. The changes in 
 Cretan art can be traced from this point down to the close 
 of the Mycenaean time, that is, till about the end of the sec- 
 ond millennium B.C. To the Greek archaeologist it is the 
 objects which belong to this second millennium that have 
 the most immediate interest, because of their relation to 
 Mycenaean art, but those which are to be dated earlier are 
 of the highest importance to a knowledge of that which lies 
 back of the Mycenaean period. It has already been said 
 that Schliemann found settlements at Hissarlik beneath 
 the one which proved to be the Troy of Mycenaean times, 
 and evidence of this primitive culture has for years past 
 been turning up in the islands of the Aegean. Just now 
 similar phaenomena are appearing on the Greek mainland, 
 notably under the ruins of Mycenaean Tiryns, so that a 
 primitive archaeology of the Aegean region is slowly de- 
 veloping. But this is a matter which I must pass by. 
 
 The view which archaeologists are at present inclined to 
 take with reference to the Mycenaean civilization is that 
 
 17 
 
one of its greatest centres, probably its greatest centre, was 
 in Crete, and that a period in its course of great influence 
 and power is to be associated with the King Minos who be- 
 comes an important figure in later Greek legend. Whether 
 the civilization spread directly from Crete to outlying 
 regions is still a matter for discussion. It was important in 
 Sicily, and its influence reached to far-off Spain, which in 
 its bull-fights appears still to hark back to a favorite 
 Mycenaean sport. Some students of the prehistoric archae- 
 ology of northern Europe believe indeed that this My- 
 cenaean influence may be traced far northward into the 
 continent. The regions, however, that were close at hand 
 must have felt this influence most strongly. Thus to un- 
 derstand the ethnic and artistic relations in which this early 
 civilization stands to the Greece of later times is all-import- 
 ant to the Greek archaeologist. 
 
 The art of the Mycenaean civilization was in some direc- 
 tions of a very fully developed type. In architecture we 
 find exceedingly elaborate structures, especially in Crete, 
 where the palaces of the chieftains were unfortified, pre- 
 sumably because their owners controlled the seas. On the 
 mainland, the palace at Tiryns shows most distinctly the 
 type of the fortified residence, and here we approach a 
 good deal more closely to the plan of a chieftain's house as 
 it appears in the Odyssey. It is clear enough that these 
 residences were often splendidly adorned and were ar- 
 ranged for a life of considerable comfort. Wall paintings 
 of high decorative merit have been found, excellent relief- 
 work in plaster and fine carving in stone, but it is above 
 all the objects of minor art which excite our admiration. 
 Some of the work in gold, silver and bronze has perhaps 
 never been surpassed, and great skill, too, is shown in the 
 relief work on some of the stone vases, and in the carving 
 of ivory and gems. In pottery, too, there is very high de- 
 velopment, and great variety, with extremely clever use of 
 
 18 
 
plant forms and of some marine animals in the decorative 
 schemes. A linear script which takes the place of an earlier 
 hieroglyphic writing was known, but it has not yet been 
 deciphered. In general it may be said that the Mycenaean 
 art shows some oriental and especially Egyptian influence, 
 but in the main its character is singularly independent, 
 and it is often startlingly modern, much more so than the 
 Greek art of the classic period. When the human face is 
 represented, it is neither Egyptian nor Semitic in type, 
 and the individuality of the faces is strongly marked. To 
 me it seems that great emphasis should be laid on this 
 tendency to mark the individual. The importance of the 
 individual man is one of the leading social facts of Greek 
 civilization, and one of the features which distinguishes it 
 from the characteristic civilizations of the East. Thus 
 when the differences between the art of Greece and that 
 of the Mycenaeans are emphasized, it is well to keep this 
 fundamental resemblance in mind. 
 
 But what is the origin and what are the ethnic relations 
 of this gifted people which has so recently been made 
 known to us? This is a question now being eagerly asked, 
 but as yet it has not been answered. If the writing on seals 
 and clay tablets shall be deciphered, we are likely to know 
 a good deal more than we do now. At present the whole 
 matter is involved in the conflicting traditions regarding 
 the various tribes and peoples which had their homes in 
 Greece before the inhabitants came to be known as Hel- 
 lenes, for, if anything is certain, it is that the Greeks of 
 historic times were a mixture of various different peoples. 
 The problem becomes closely linked with the intricate ques- 
 tion of the origin of the Homeric poems, since in them we 
 have a picture of the heroic, or Achaean civilization which 
 furnishes the background for so much of Greek legendary 
 history. More specifically, the question presents itself to 
 us in this form : Is the Mycenaean art and civilization suf - 
 
 19 
 
ficiently like the art and civilization depicted in the Ho- 
 meric poems to warrant us in practically identifying the 
 two civilizations? It is not surprising that archaeologists 
 should often disagree in such a matter, and of course the 
 extraordinarily difficult critical problem of the unity of the 
 Homeric picture is also involved. Is it a single picture 
 that the poems give us, or is it a picture of earlier times 
 complicated by the contemporary influence of the poet's 
 surroundings or by the play of his own fancy? Clearly 
 there is plenty of chance for a difference of opinion, and 
 two marked tendencies are observable. The one would em- 
 phasize the differences between Homeric art and that of 
 the Mycenaean civilization, the other the resemblances be- 
 tween the two. As matters stand to-day, the view that 
 the Homeric poems reflect in the main the civilization of 
 the Mycenaean period is the prevailing one. The differ- 
 ences, it is thought, may generally be explained by the fact 
 that the poems originated at a later time, and that the 
 picture they give has been somewhat modified by changing 
 customs. Thus the society of the poems has a somewhat 
 more democratic stamp than we should naturally associate 
 with the Mycenaean civilization, and the connection be- 
 tween the Homeric conception of the gods and the religious 
 ideas of the Mycenaean civilization, so far as we can form 
 an idea of them, is not yet clear. Apparently the muse who 
 inspires the poet is a very complicated personality. Em- 
 phasize as we will the unity of the poems in their present 
 form, there is still very strong evidence that they are not 
 chronologically homogeneous in all their parts, and this 
 fact must of course warn us to expect a lack of unity in the 
 picture they afford. 
 
 When it is sought to associate the Mycenaean remains 
 with one or other of the various peoples or tribes which ap- 
 pear in the Homeric poems and in other Greek tradition, 
 we are face to face with a somewhat different phase of the 
 
 20 
 
problem. For Homer, the Achaeans are the leading race, 
 but we have in Greek tradition conflicting accounts of 
 Pelasgians who were very likely earlier. Homer knows, 
 too, of other races, and in Crete he enumerates many tribes. 
 But so long as we lack the knowledge to form any clear 
 conception of the qualities of these different races, there 
 is no great scientific gain in identifying one or the other 
 with the Mycenaeans. It is always possible, moreover, and 
 very likely, that this wonderful art grew up in the gradual 
 union of tribes of different stock. So, to solve the problem, 
 we must wait for more light. 
 
 The relation of Mycenaean art to that of later Greece 
 may, however, be traced in a more distinctly archaeological 
 way, a way that does not involve the uncertainties of vague 
 literary traditions. Here the question is: How far can 
 the influence of Mycenaean design be traced in later art? 
 I have already said that, when this great civilization passed 
 away, at the end of the second millennium B.C., it was 
 succeeded by a period in which artistic design was based 
 chiefly on geometric forms. The art of this period is far 
 less advanced, and we have what has been called the time 
 of the Greek "Dark Ages." Some movement of peoples, 
 very likely the so-called Dorian invasion, put an end to \he 
 power of the Mycenaean chieftains, and to the art that 
 their civilization produced ; then there was gradually devel- 
 oped an art, ruder in character, which had its basis in the 
 geometric designs that are common enough among all 
 primitive peoples. In other words the geometric art is the 
 outgrowth of a peasant style, a Bauernstil, as the Germans 
 call it. In this may be traced some remains of Mycenaean 
 influence, enough, probably, to show that the traditions of 
 that civilization were not quite lost, though investigations 
 in the matter are by no means complete. Another and 
 probably stronger support for this connection between 
 Mycenaean art and that of later Greece lies in the early 
 
 21 
 
art of Ionia, where it would seem that Mycenaean elements 
 have been somewhat more directly preserved. As yet, how- 
 ever, we know comparatively little of the early Ionic re- 
 mains, and their further discovery and investigation is one 
 of the most important problems in Greek archaeology. To 
 the work, then, of the Greeks of Asia Minor we must look 
 for light on this point, and indeed this region of the Greek 
 world has in many ways become the land of promise for 
 the archaeologist. To take but a single instance: in the 
 Greek art of the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. there are 
 many oriental elements. Where do they come from? Very 
 likely through Lydia and Cappadocia, but the early art of 
 these countries is still very imperfectly known. 
 
 This very scant outline of some of the problems which 
 are now before students of prehistoric Greece, must, I fear, 
 suffice for the present purpose, and I will next pass on to 
 consider the results of a typical excavation of the historic 
 period. The work of the Greeks on the Acropolis at 
 Athens during the decade between 1880 and 1890 seems 
 a good example to choose, because of its bearing not only 
 upon the history of sculpture, but also upon that of archi- 
 tecture and upon some of the minor forms of Greek art. 
 
 As has already been remarked, through the bringing of 
 the Elgin marbles to London a definite conception of the 
 Phidian art— that is, of the art of Greek sculpture in At- 
 tica about the middle of the fifth century B.C. — was gained. 
 Of the earlier development of Athenian art there was prac- 
 tically no knowledge, though some other parts of Greece, 
 notably Aegina, certain regions of Ionia, and Olympia, 
 had yielded sculpture which was clearly earlier in date than 
 the marbles of the Parthenon. Did not Attic art also pass 
 through an archaic stage? There were, to be sure, a few 
 isolated specimens of the early art of Attica, like the figure 
 popularly known as the "Marathonian Soldier," but these 
 could not be dated with any certainty, and they seemed to 
 
 22 
 
stand unrelated to the subsequent period. In architecture 
 the Parthenon, Propylaea, and Erechtheum of course af- 
 forded a good idea of fifth century work, but we knew 
 nothing of the stages through which the art had passed 
 before reaching the perfection of form which these ruins 
 show. In ceramics, archaeologists were even more at sea, 
 and archaic looking vases which showed red figures on a 
 dark ground, the scheme of color that follows the system 
 known as black-figured, were dated well on in the fifth cen- 
 tury B.C.J in spite of their archaic character. This may seem 
 a slight matter, but to the archaeologist a correct chro- 
 nology of vases is all-important, since in excavation, the 
 potsherds are often, are indeed commonly, the indication 
 of date. Such, then, in general, was the state of our knowl- 
 edge—or ignorance— about Attic art, when the excavations 
 on the Acropolis began. From the Greek historians, how- 
 ever, this fact was known, namely, that when Xerxes in- 
 vaded Greece in 480 B.C. the Persians, just before the battle 
 of Salamis, captured Athens and destroyed the monuments 
 on the Acropolis. Presumably, therefore, the excavators 
 would find at least some record of the art which preceded 
 the Phidian epoch, and it would be fair to assume that 
 objects found in the rubbish used to level the surface of the 
 hill for the builders of the fifth century would be correctly 
 dated at least before 480 B.C. The results of the excava- 
 tions exceeded the fondest hopes of the archaeologists. A 
 large series of sculptures was found illustrating the art of 
 the Athenians from the beginning of the sixth century B.C., 
 and possibly from a slightly earlier date. Some of these 
 formed pedimental groups and thus showed the existence 
 of several temples much earlier than those that were 
 known. Many architectural fragments were found which 
 have gradually disclosed their meaning, and even to-day 
 students are at work on the remains and are constantly 
 making additions to our knowledge. It would be difficult 
 
 28 
 
to exaggerate the importance of these excavations to an 
 understanding of Greek art. The historical relation of 
 many monuments was at once made clear, and a definite 
 impression of the Athenian art of the sixth century B.C. 
 was created, analogous to that which the Elgin marbles had 
 created for the fifth. Many inscriptions and some import- 
 ant objects in bronze were discovered, and the finding of 
 red-figured vases in the pre-Persian rubbish established the 
 fact that much too late a date had been given for the begin- 
 ning of the style. Some of the discoveries had also an im- 
 portant mythological bearing, for many of the objects 
 found are related to Athenian legend and cult. Not only 
 is it now possible to know much of several temples on the 
 Acropolis which existed a century and more before the 
 Parthenon, but it has also been revealed that the height 
 was once a stronghold in Mycenaean times, and had, like 
 Tiryns, its chieftain's palace, to which a passage in the 
 Odyssey appears to make reference. It is impossible to 
 indicate in a few words the far-reaching scientific and ar- 
 tistic importance of such excavations as these ; they throw 
 light in so many ways, not only upon questions immedi- 
 ately before the excavators, but also upon the problems 
 of excavations in other regions. The discoveries, for ex- 
 ample, on the Acropolis of early sculptures have an 
 important bearing upon similar finds in the more recent 
 excavations at Delphi. 
 
 The next example of recent archaeological progress I 
 will take from ceramics, one of the most important of the 
 various branches of Greek industrial art. I shall confine 
 my remarks to the vases alone, though of course the subject 
 includes all work in moulded clay, and consequently the 
 beautiful and interesting figurines about which there has 
 been so much talk in recent years. 
 
 The scientific study of vases is comparatively new, in 
 spite of the fact that the older museums of Europe have 
 
 24 
 
for a long time possessed large collections. The subject is 
 a difficult one, since it includes products which differ 
 greatly in style, and the reciprocal influence of the various 
 styles is still in many cases imperfectly understood. Until 
 rather recently the best known classes of these vases, both 
 black and red-figured, were indiscriminately called Etrus- 
 can, and even to-day one sometimes hears this term popu- 
 larly applied to them. We now know, however, that com- 
 paratively few of them are really Etruscan, and these of 
 inferior quality; although found in Italy, they are for the 
 most part Greek and to a large extent Athenian. It is 
 the excavations of recent years, like those on the Athenian 
 Acropolis, which have made a scientific study of this branch 
 of Greek archaeology possible. So long as the vases were 
 known merely in museums, and the records of their discov- 
 ery were either wanting entirely or were very defective, no 
 progress could be made. Now archaeologists are able to 
 work in the light, since many vases found actually on 
 Greek soil, and in many different localities, have made the 
 scientific classification of museum specimens possible. 
 
 Apart from the importance of vases in furnishing chro- 
 nological clews to the excavator, and apart from the actual 
 beauty of the best specimens, they are of unconmion inter- 
 est as throwing light, not only upon the major art of 
 painting among the Greeks, of which we know little, but 
 also upon mythology. This comes from the fact that it 
 was the habit of the vase decorators to choose the subjects 
 that they represented from the rich store of Greek legend. 
 The greater painters chose their subjects from the same 
 source, and so it is to the vases that we must chiefly look in 
 trying to form some conception of the work of these paint- 
 ers, which we know of otherwise only through literary 
 tradition. Certain Attic vases, for example, dating from 
 about the middle of the fifth century B.C., apparently 
 throw much light upon the school of the great artist 
 
 25 
 
Polygnotus. The relation of vase paintings to the Greek 
 epic, the storehouse of legend, is analogous. Countless 
 scenes taken from the popular mythology are represented 
 on the vases. Sometimes they are quite in accord with 
 literary tradition, again they reveal interesting variants 
 from this tradition, and not infrequently a vase may 
 show some form of a legend not otherwise known. The 
 vase painter, however, did not work solely in the atmo- 
 sphere of mythological tradition; he often chose subjects 
 from everyday life. The school-room, the palaestra, the 
 symposium, the boat-race, the ceremonies of marriage and 
 death, and other everyday events furnish him material; 
 there is in Boston an interesting amphora upon which a 
 scene representing a woman being measured for a pair of 
 shoes is painted. Taken all in all, there is perhaps no de- 
 partment of Greek archaeology which illustrates more 
 plainly than vase painting does the light such study may 
 throw upon a past civilization. The fact that it was a com- 
 paratively humble occupation, carried on by handicrafts- 
 men, only makes it seem to draw us the nearer to the 
 popular tradition and life. 
 
 I pass on now to the subject of inscriptions, a far-reach- 
 ing topic, for the Greeks, and especially the Athenians, 
 followed the practice of engraving records on stone to an 
 extent that seems almost inconceivable. Treaties, law- 
 codes, public decrees of all sorts, provisions for religious 
 observance, temple records, records of Aesculapian cures, 
 reports of commissions and of the expenditure of money, 
 architectural specifications, dedications of offerings, rec- 
 ords of literary and gymnastic contests, epitaphs— in short, 
 almost every direction that human activity takes seems to 
 find expression in inscriptions. This, of course, means 
 that they should be considered as a department of archae- 
 ology only so far as their content bears upon matters which 
 fall within the limits of this subject. I will choose, to 
 
 26 
 
illustrate the archaeological character of some inscriptions, 
 two examples which show the service they may render the 
 student of Greek architecture. The first has to do with 
 the temple on the Acropolis known as the Erechtheum, and 
 under the following circumstances: In the year 409 B.C., 
 this little temple, which has played so important a role in 
 the architectural history of the western world, was appar- 
 ently in an unfinished condition. Probably the long Pe- 
 loponnesian war had put a stop to the work upon it. How- 
 ever that may be, the Athenian government decided to ap- 
 point a commission, which was required to make an exact 
 report with reference to the condition of the building. This 
 was done apparently very carefully, for we have the com- 
 mission's report engraved on stone. It begins with these 
 words, "We found the following parts unfinished," and 
 then these parts are specified in a long list, and measure- 
 ments are given. A year later the work had been done, and 
 it was necessary to have an account of expenses, so another 
 long inscription was prepared giving in detail the siuns of 
 money which had been paid out to the workmen for specific 
 pieces of work. In both inscriptions there is of coiu'se in- 
 cidental mention of many different portions of the temple. 
 Now, about four years ago, the Greek authorities deter- 
 mined to carry out some repairs upon the ruins of the Erech- 
 theum, so that at least their further decay might be arrested, 
 and this work led to a very careful study of the scattered 
 architectural fragments which could be assigned to the 
 building. The time seemed propitious for a new publica- 
 tion of the temple, since all the existing studies of it are 
 very inadequate, and the officers of our own School at 
 Athens decided to undertake the work. Elaborate and very 
 beautiful drawings have already been made by Mr. Gor- 
 ham Stevens, of the office of McKim, Mead and White, 
 while he was Fellow in Architecture at the School, and the 
 careful archaeological study of the ruins is now going f or- 
 
 27 
 
ward. One of the important features of this study is the ex- 
 act editing of these inscriptions which, in spite of the muti- 
 lated condition of some portions of them, have a great deal 
 to tell of parts of the building now in ruins. Thus, in get- 
 ting at the significance of the scattered architectural mem- 
 bers, they are often of the highest importance, and never 
 until now has it been possible to study them carefully in 
 the light of a complete knowledge of the remains of the 
 temple. 
 
 The second example of an important archaeological in- 
 scription is one from the year 342 B.C. ; it concerns a naval 
 arsenal that was to be built at the Piraeus. The inscrip- 
 tion, which has hardly an illegible word in it, is headed, 
 "Report (which here means specifications) of the stone 
 storehouse for ship's tackle." There were apparently two 
 commissioners, Euthydomus and Philo, of whom the latter 
 was a well-known architect, and the storehouse now goes 
 by the name of the "Arsenal of Philo." No vestige of this 
 building remains, but so careful are the specifications, 
 which include measurements, that it has been possible to 
 make complete drawings of the building. Only a very few 
 minor matters of detail are open to dispute. It would be 
 possible to give many other examples of the important 
 archaeological bearing of inscriptions, but these instances 
 are perhaps sufficient ; they are, at any rate, characteristic. 
 
 In citing the foregoing typical examples of work in 
 Greek archaeology I trust I shall not be thought to have 
 attempted even an outline sketch of the general subject. 
 Had this been my purpose, I must have made mention of 
 several other important branches of the study. Bronze 
 work, for example, and work in gold and silver, shows the 
 characteristics of other forms and periods of Greek art, 
 and it is of the highest value, both for its intrinsic merit 
 and because it affords the student much suggestive ma- 
 terial for comparison with other things. The same is true 
 
 28 
 
also of the art of gem cutting (glyptics) which extends 
 from Mycenaean times down. And above all there is the 
 great subject of coins (numismatics) which is really a 
 specialty by itself. To the Greek archaeologist its import- 
 ance can hardly be exaggerated ; coins furnish the student 
 of history important data with reference to the commercial 
 and political relations between different communities ; they 
 frequently throw light on political changes; the student of 
 religion and art finds in them many types in the represen- 
 tation of deities ; they often afford information about por- 
 traiture, and the Greek coins of the Roman period not 
 infrequently bear representations of famous statues, and 
 other celebrated monuments of bygone times. Further- 
 more, the extraordinary beauty of the best specimens of 
 Greek coinage raises them to a high artistic level which 
 makes most modern attempts in this direction seem poor 
 indeed. 
 
 Inadequate as this hasty survey of a great subject must 
 be, I hope at least it may have suggested the high import- 
 ance of archaeology in the study of the growth of human 
 civilization. As the material from various regions and 
 countries accumulates, it will of course throw much light 
 upon the mutual relations of different peoples. Almost 
 every year of late has brought some new suggestion of this 
 kind, and Asia Minor, one of the great meeting-places of 
 East and West, has been comparatively little explored. In 
 many prehistoric fields, where the anthropologist and 
 archaeologist work hand in hand, new views of the earlier 
 conditions and relations of human life on the earth contin- 
 ually appear. Archaeology is still in its infancy, but the 
 time seems surely coming when the comparative study of 
 former races and civilizations may be based, far more than 
 is possible to-day, on a sound knowledge of their handi- 
 craft and art. 
 
 OF 
 
 *^id[FORNU^ 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 A SERIES of twenty-two lectures descriptive in untechnical language of 
 the achievements in Science, Philosophy and Art, and indicating the 
 present status of these subjects as concepts of human knowledge, are being 
 delivered at Columbia University, during the academic year 1907-1908, by 
 various professors chosen to represent the several departments of instruction. 
 
 MATHEMATICS, by Cassius Jackson Keyser, Adrain Professor of Mathe- 
 matics. 
 
 PHYSICS, by Ernest Fox Nichols, Professor of Experimental Physics. 
 
 CHEMISTRY, by Charles F. Chandler, Professor of Chemistry. 
 
 ASTRONOMY, by Harold Jacoby, Rutherfurd Professor of Astronomy. 
 
 GEOLOGY, by James Furman Kemp, Professor of Geology. 
 
 BIOLOGY, by Edmund B. Wilson, Professor of Zoology. 
 
 PHYSIOLOGY, by Frederic S. Lee, Professor of Physiology. 
 
 BOTANY, by Herbert Maule Richards, Professor of Botany. 
 
 ZOOLOGY, by Henry E. Crampton, Professor of Zoology. 
 
 ANTHROPOLOGY, by Franz Boas, Professor of Anthropology. 
 
 ARCHAEOLOGY, by James Rignall ^^fhtd^v, Professor of Greek Archae- 
 ology and Art. 
 
 HISTORY, by James Harvey Robinson, Professor of History. 
 
 ECONOMICS, by Henry Rogers Seager, Professor of Political Economy. 
 
 POLITICS, by Charles A. Beard, Adjunct Professor of Politics. 
 
 JURISPRUDENCE, by Munroe Smith, Professor of Roman Law and 
 Comparative Jurisprudence. 
 
 SOCIOLOGY, by Franklin Henry Giddings, Professor of Sociology. 
 
 PHILOSOPHY, by Nicholas Murray Butler, President of the University. 
 
 PSYCHOLOGY, by Robert S. Woodworth, Adjunct Professor of Psy- 
 chology. 
 
 METAPHYSICS, by Frederick J. E. Woodbridge, Johnsonian Professor of 
 Philosophy. 
 
 ETHICS, by John Dewey, Professor of Philosophy. 
 
 PHILOLOGY, by A. V. W. Jackson, Professor of Indo-Iranian Lan- 
 guages. 
 
 LITERATURE, by Harry Thurston Peck, Anthon Professor of the Latin 
 Language and Literature. 
 
 These lectures are published by the Columbia University Press separately in 
 pamphlet form, at the uniform price of twenty-five cents, by mail twenty-eight 
 cents. Orders will be taken for the separate pamphlets, or for the whole series. 
 
 Address 
 THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 Columbia University, New York 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY, 
 BERKELEY 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of 
 50c per volume after the third day overdue, increasing 
 to $1.00 per volume after the sixth day. Books not in 
 demand may be renewed if application is made before 
 expiration of loan period. 
 
 MAR 4 t932 
 
 m2 
 
 OfC IS 1942 
 
203480