Part 1

INTRODUCTORY LECTURE

ON

ARCHÆOLOGY.

_Cambridge_: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

AN

INTRODUCTORY LECTURE

ON

ARCHÆOLOGY

_Delivered before the University of Cambridge._

BY

CHURCHILL BABINGTON, B.D., F.L.S.

DISNEY PROFESSOR OF ARCHÆOLOGY, SENIOR FELLOW OF ST JOHN’S COLLEGE, MEMBER OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LITERATURE, OF THE NUMISMATIC AND SYRO-EGYPTIAN SOCIETIES, HONORARY MEMBER OF THE HISTORICO-THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LEIPSIC, AND OF THE ARCHÆOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF ROME.

CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO. LONDON: BELL AND DALDY. 1865.

PREFACE.

The following Lecture was divided in the delivery into two parts; illustrative specimens being exhibited after the conclusion of the delivery of each portion. It has been suggested that I should add in the form of notes a few books which may prove useful to the students of particular branches of Archæology; my best thanks are due to the Rev. T. G. Bonney and the Rev. W. G. Searle for their kind and valuable assistance in drawing up certain of the lists. For ancient art and archæology K. O. Müller’s Manual, so often referred to, will in general sufficiently indicate the bibliography, and it is only in a few departments, in numismatics more especially, that it has been deemed necessary to add anything to his references. M. Labarte’s Handbook, from which a great part of the concluding portion of this lecture is derived, will do the same thing, though in a far less complete manner, for medieval art.

CONTENTS.

PLAN of the Lecture, pp. 1-3.

Archæology defined, and the principal kinds of archæological monuments specified, pp. 3-6.

Nature of the Disney Professorship of Archæology explained; its comprehensive character; the advantages of this, pp. 6-13.

Sketch of the existing remains of Antiquity among different nations, beginning with primeval man, pp. 13-21. The Egyptians, pp. 21-26. The Babylonians, pp. 26, 27. The Assyrians, pp. 27, 28. The Persians, pp. 28, 29. The Jews, pp. 29-31. The Phœnicians, pp. 31, 32. The Lycians, pp. 32, 33. The Greeks, pp. 33-41. The Etruscans, p. 41. The Romans, pp. 42-46. The Celts, pp. 43, 44. The Byzantine empire and the European nations during the middle ages, pp. 46-61. Recapitulation, pp. 61, 62.

Qualifications necessary for an archæologist. He must be a collector of facts and objects, and be able to reason on them. He must also be a man of learning. Exact scholarship, an appreciation of art, and a knowledge of natural history often useful or necessary for the archæologist, pp. 63-68.

Pleasures and advantages which result from archæology. It illustrates and is illustrated by ancient literature. Modern art aided by archæology. Archæology deserving of cultivation for its own sake, as an ennobling and delightful pursuit, pp. 68-74.

INTRODUCTORY LECTURE

ON

ARCHÆOLOGY.

FOLLOWING the example of my distinguished predecessor in the Disney Professorship of Archæology, I open my first Course of Lectures with an introductory Lecture on Archæology itself, so far as the very limited time for preparation has allowed me to attempt one.

I cannot indeed conceal from myself, and still less can I conceal from you, that no introductory Lecture which I could give, even if I were to take my own time in writing it, would bear any comparison with the compositions of his elegant and learned pen. It certainly does not proceed from flattery, and I hope not from an undue partiality of friendship to say of him, that in his power of grasping a complicated subject, of presenting it in a clear light, of illustrating it with varied learning, and of expressing himself in relation thereto in appropriate language, I have rarely seen his equal. To how great a disadvantage then must I necessarily appear, when I have had only six weeks’ time in which to get ready this as well as five other Lectures, and have been moreover compelled to devote a considerable part even of that short time to other and not less important duties. A great unwillingness however that the Academical year should pass over without any Archæological Lectures being delivered by the Disney Professor, has induced me to make the attempt more quickly than would under other circumstances have been desirable or even justifiable; and I venture to hope that when allowance is made for the exigency of the case, I shall find in you, who have honoured this Lecture by your presence, a clement and even an indulgent audience.

In an introductory Lecture which deals with generalities, it is hardly to be expected that I either can say or ought to try to say much which is absolutely new to any of my hearers; and I shall not affect to say anything peculiarly striking, but shall rather attempt to bring before you in a plain way a view of the subject, which aims at being concise and comprehensive; and in connexion therewith respectfully to submit a few observations which have relation to other Academical studies, as well as to the character of this particular Professorship.

What I propose then to do is this, first to explain what Archæology is; next to put in a clear light what the character of this Professorship is; after that to attempt a general sketch of the existing remains of Antiquity; then to point out the qualifications necessary or desirable for an archæologist; and in conclusion, to indicate the pleasure and advantage which flow from his pursuits.

The field of Archæology is vast, and almost boundless; the eye, even the most experienced eye, can hardly take in the whole prospect; and those who have most assiduously laboured in its exploration will be most ready to admit, that there are portions, and those large portions, which are to them either almost or altogether unknown.

For what is Archæology? It is, I conceive, the science of teaching history by its monuments[1], of whatever character those monuments may be. When I say history, I use the word not in the limited sense of the history of dynasties or of governments. Archæology does indeed concern itself with these, and splendidly does it illustrate and illuminate them; but it also concerns itself with every kind of monument of man which the ravages of time have spared.

Footnote 1:

Perhaps it would be more correct to say ‘by its _contemporary sensible_ monuments,’ so as to exclude later copies of ancient writings, or the _monumenta litterarum_, which fall more especially to the province of the scholar. A MS. of Aristotle of the thirteenth century is an archæological monument of that century only; it is a literary monument of the fourth century B.C. But a Greek epigram or epitaph which occurs on a sepulchral monument of the same or any other century B.C. is an archæological as well as a literary monument of that century.

Archæology concerns itself with the domestic and the social, as well as with the religious, the commercial, and the political life of all nations and of all tribes in the ages that have passed away. All that men in ancient times have made, and left behind them, is the farrago of our study.

The archæologist will consequently make observations and speculations on the sites of ancient cities where men have dwelt; on their walls and buildings, sacred and profane; on their altars and their market-places; on their subterranean constructions, whether sepulchres, treasuries, or drains. He will trace the roads and the fosses along which men of the old world moved, and on which men often still move; he will explore the routes of armies and the camps where they have pitched, and will prowl about the barrows in which they sleep;

Exesa inveniet scabra robigine pila, Grandiaque effossis mirabitur ossa sepulchris.

He will also collect and classify every kind of object, which man has made for use or for ornament in his own home, or in the city; in the fields, or on the water. He will arrange the weapons of offence and defence according to their material and age; whether of stone, of bronze, of iron, or of steel; among which some are so rude that a practised eye alone distinguishes them from the broken flint stones lying in the field, others again so elaborate as to rank among the most beautiful productions both of classical and medieval art; he will not disdain to preserve the bricks and the tiles, which have once formed parts of Asiatic cities or of Roman farms; he will excavate the villas of the ancients; unearth their mosaic pavements; clean their lamps and candelabra; he will mend or restore their broken crockery, and glass; he will even penetrate into the lady’s chamber, turn over her toilet, admire her brooches and her bracelets, examine her mirrors and her pins; and all this he will do in addition to studying the nobler works of ancient art, such as engraved gems and medallions; works chased, carved and embossed in the precious metals and in ivory; frescoes and vase-paintings; bronzes and statues. He will, likewise, familiarise himself with the alphabets of the ancient nations, and exercise his ingenuity in deciphering their written records, both public and private; whether these be contained in inscriptions on stones or metal plates, or in papyrus-rolls, or parchment books; or be scratched on walls or on statues; or be painted on vases; or, in fine, surround the device of a coin.

I have now mentioned some of the principal objects of archæology, which, as I have said, embraces within its range all the monuments of the history and life of man in times past. And this it does, beginning with the remains of primeval man, which stretch far beyond the records of all literary history, and descending along the stream of time till it approaches, but does not quite reach time actually present. No sharp line of demarcation separates the past from the present; you may say that classical archæology terminates with the overthrow of the Western Empire; you may conceive that medieval archæology ceases with the reign of Henry the Seventh; but, be this as it may, in a very few generations the objects of use or of ornament to us will become the objects of research to the archæologist; and, I may add, may be the subjects of lectures to my successors.

For the founder of this Professorship, whose memory is never to be named without honour, and the University which accepted it, together with his valuable collection of ancient sculptures, undoubtedly intended that any kind or class of antiquities whatever might fitly form the theme of the Professor’s discourse. I say this, because a misconception has undoubtedly prevailed on this subject, from which even my learned predecessor himself was not free. “Every nation of course,” says he, “has its own peculiar archæology. Whether civilized or uncivilized, whether of historic fame or of obscure barbarism, Judæa, Assyria, and Egypt; Greece and Rome; India, China, and Mexico; Denmark, Germany, Britain, and the other nations of modern Europe, all have their archæology. The field of inquiry,” he continues, “is boundless, and in the multitude of objects presenting themselves the enquirer is bewildered. It has been wisely provided therefore by the founder of this Professorship, that we shall direct our attention more immediately to one particular class of Antiquities, and that the noblest and most important of them all, I mean the Antiquities of Greece and Rome[2].” Very probably such may have been Mr Disney’s original intention; and if so, this will easily explain and abundantly pardon the error of my accomplished friend; but the actual words of the declaration and agreement between Mr Disney and the University, which is of course the only document of binding force, are as follows: “That it shall be the duty of the Professor to deliver in the course of each academical year, at such days and hours as the Vice-Chancellor shall appoint, six lectures at least on the subject of Classical, Mediæval and other Antiquities, the Fine Arts and all matters and things connected therewith.” Whether he would have acted wisely or not wisely in limiting the field to classical archæology, he has in point of fact not thus limited it. And, upon the whole, I must confess, I am glad that he has imposed no limitation. For while there are but few who would deny that many of the very choicest relics of ancient art and of ancient history are to be sought for in the Greek and Roman saloons and cabinets of the museums of Europe, yet it must at the same time be admitted that there are other branches of archæology, which are far too important to be neglected, and which have an interest, and often a very high interest, of their own.

Footnote 2:

Marsden’s _Introd. Lect._ p. 5. Cambr. 1852.

Let it be confessed, that the archæology of Greece has in many respects the pre-eminence over every other. “It is to Greece that the whole civilized world looks up,” says Canon Marsden, “as its teacher in literature and in art; and it is to her productions that we refer as the standard of all that is beautiful, noble, and excellent. Greece excelled in all that she put her hand to. Her sons were poets and orators and historians; they were architects and sculptors and painters. The scantiest gleanings of her soil are superior to that which constitutes the pride and boast of others. Scarcely a fragment is picked up from the majestic ruin, which does not induce a train of thought upon the marvellous grace and beauty which must have characterized the whole!

Quale te dicat tamen Antehac fuisse, tales cum sint relliquiæ.”

These eloquent and fervid words proceed from a passionate admirer of Hellenic art, and a most successful cultivator of its archæology. Nor do I dare to say that the praise is exaggerated. But at the same time, viewed in other aspects, the archæology of our own country has even greater interest and importance for us. What man is there, in whose breast glows a spark of patriotism, who does not view the monuments of his country which are everywhere spread around him, (in this place above most places,) which connect the present with the remote past, and with many and diverse ages of that past by a thousand reminiscences, with feelings deeper and nobler than any exotic remains of antiquity, how charming soever, could either foment or engender? This love of national antiquities, seated in a healthy patriotic feeling, has place in the speech of an apostle himself: “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried; and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.” The same feeling prompted Wordsworth thus to express himself in reference to our ancient colleges and their former occupants:

I could not always lightly pass Through the same gateways, sleep where they had slept, Wake where they waked; I could not always print Ground where the grass had yielded to the steps Of generations of illustrious men, Unmoved.... Their several memories here Put on a lowly and a touching grace Of more distinct humanity.

And not only the buildings, but the other archæological monuments of the University (for so I think I may be permitted to call the pictures and the busts, and the statues, and the tombs, which are the glories of our chapels, our libraries and our halls) teach the same great lessons. They raise up again our own worthies before our very eyes, calling on us to strive to walk as they walked, dead though they be and buried; for their effigies and their sepulchres are ‘with us to this day.’ I must repeat, then, that I am glad that the Disney Professor is not obliged to confine himself to classical archæology, sorry as I should be if he were wholly unable to give lectures on one or more branches of that most interesting department, which has moreover a special connexion with the classical studies of the University. It is manifest that the University intended the Professor to consider no kind of human antiquities as alien from him; and I think this in itself a very great gain. For, if the truth must be confessed, antiquaries above most others have been guilty of the error of despising those branches of study which are not precisely their own. I forbear to adduce proofs of this, though I am not unprovided with them; and even although you would certainly be amused if I were to read them; classicists against gothicists; gothicists against classicists.

I could wish that the learned and meritorious writers on both sides had profited by the judicious remarks of Mr Willson, prefixed to Mr Pugin’s _Specimens of Gothic Architecture in England_. “The respective beauties and conveniences proper to the Grecian orders in their pure state or as modified by the Romans and their successors in the Palladian school may be fully allowed, without a bigoted exclusion of the style we are accustomed to term Gothic. Nor ought its merits to be asserted to the disadvantage of the classic style. Each has its beauties, each has its proportions[3].” One of the most eminent Gothic architects, Mr George Gilbert Scott, expresses himself in a very similar spirit. “It may be asked, what influence do we expect that the present so-called classic styles will exercise upon the result we are imagining, (_i.e._ the developement of the architecture of the future). Is the work of three centuries to be unfelt in the future developements, and are its monuments to remain among us in a state of isolation, exercising no influence upon future art? It would, I am convinced, be as unphilosophical to wish, as it would be unreasonable to expect this[4].” To turn from them to the classicists. “See how much Athens gains,” says Prof. T. L. Donaldson, “upon the affections of every people, of every age, by her Architectural ruins. Not a traveller visits Greece whose chief purpose is not centred in the Acropolis of Minerva.... But in thus rendering the homage due to ancient Art it were unjust to pass without notice those sublime edifices due to the Genius of our Fathers. It is now unnecessary to enter upon the question, whether the first ideas of Gothic Architecture were the result of a casual combination of lines or a felicitous adaptation of form derived immediately from Nature: But graceful proportion, solemnity of effect, variety of plan, playfulness of outline and the profoundest elements of knowledge of construction place these edifices on a par with any of ancient times. Less pure in conception and detail, they excel in extent of plan and of disposition, and yield not in the mysterious effect produced on the feelings of the worshipper. The sculptured presence of the frowning Jove or the chryselephantine statue of Minerva were necessary to awe the Heathen into devotion. But the presence of the Godhead appears, not materially but spiritually, to pervade the whole atmosphere of one of our Gothic Cathedrals[5].” The Editor of _The Museum of Classical Antiquities_, well says, “As antiquity embraces all knowledge, so investigations into it must be distinct and various. Each antiquary labours for his own particular object, and each severally assists the other[6].” It should be borne in mind moreover that archæological remains of every kind and sort are really a part of human history; and if all parts of history deserve to be studied, as they most assuredly do, being parts, though not equally important parts, of the Epic unity of our race, it will follow even with mathematical precision that all monuments relating to all parts of that history must be worthy of study also.

Footnote 3:

P. xix. London, 1821.

Footnote 4:

Scott’s _Remarks on Secular and Domestic Architecture, present and future_, p. 272. London, 1857.

Footnote 5:

_Preliminary Discourse_ pronounced before the University College of London, upon the commencement of a series of Lectures on Architecture, pp. 17-24. London, 1842.

Footnote 6:

_Museum of Classical Antiquities_, Vol. I. p. 1. London, 1851.

I desire therefore to express in language as strong as may be consistent with propriety, my entire disapproval of pitting one branch of archæology against another, or indeed any study against another study. And on this very account I rejoice that the Disney Professor’s field of choice is as wide as the world itself, so far as concerns its archæology. There is no country, there is no period about which he may not occupy himself, or on which he may not lecture, if he feel himself qualified to do so. He is in a manner bound by the tenure of his office to treat every branch of archæology with honourable respect; and this in itself may not be without a wholesome influence both upon his words and sentiments. I have been somewhat longer over this matter than I could have wished; but I thought it desirable that the position of the Disney Professor should be rightly understood; and I have also endeavoured to shew the real advantage of that position.