SYSTEMATIC ARCHAEOLOGY
[Sidenote: Systems of Work.]
A science can hardly be said to exist until it has a developed system
of work, and its possibilities of value for teaching purposes depend
entirely on the organization of its methods. Geology was a chaos
before the generalisation of the successive order of the strata, and
the method of the determination of a stratum by its fossils, gave the
subject a working system. Astronomy was a maze until the Newtonian
laws produced methods of analysis. Chemistry could not be said to have
any methods until the use of the balance and the theory of atomic
combination made possible the last century of development. So far,
archaeology cannot be said to have systematised any working methods
except those of artistic comparison and of epigraphy, and these can
only cover a small part of the space and time which need to be studied.
Two general modes of work, however, have been begun, beside that of
artistic comparison; and it only needs that they should be fully
carried out in order to produce a thoroughly systematic archaeology.
These methods are (1) the complete definition of facts by means of a
_corpus_ of all known varieties of objects, in terms of which every
object can be defined; and (2) the arrangement of material in its order
of development by statistical methods and comparison, which bring out
the original sequence of construction. These two methods of work may
prove to be, for archaeology, what the balance and atomic theory have
been for chemistry,--the necessary foundation for systematic knowledge
and exact theory.
[Sidenote: Need of a _corpus_.]
The collection of known objects in a _corpus_ was well done by the
early systematisers, especially Montfaucon; and though his work is
nearly two centuries old, it has not yet been superseded by better
productions in every department. Since that appeared, the mass of new
material which has been collected, especially in the last fifty years,
cannot be mastered by one man, if he is ever to find time for original
work; and the whole subject is near coming to a standstill owing
to the dead weight of preparations which are required before going
further. Until a generation of systematisers shall arise, archaeology
can scarcely progress without continual waste of material and loss by
duplication of work. Moreover, there is no general reference work, and
no notation efficient for recording new discoveries.
What is now urgently needed is for some scholars to each take one
branch of work, to collect all that is known, especially of dated
material; and then to publish all type examples, showing how the
subject varied from century to century, and to attach a system of
letters and numbers to every variety, so that any specimen can be
denoted merely by its _corpus_ number. This should be done at least for
all implements of stone and of metal, all pottery, all stone and metal
vases, all beads and personal ornaments, jewellery, clothing, domestic
utensils, and all motives of design and ornamentation.
With such a definite notation once laid down, it would be possible
to record discoveries, and especially groups of objects, rapidly and
in a small compass. It would also be possible to compile results of
excavations and the contents of museums in simple indices. In order to
work systematically in archaeology we ought to be able to look in an
index and find at once where, and of what epoch, is every instance of
a particular object: say, of a key, type M 27, or of a vase, type D
64. Such indices should be continued by supplements issued every ten
or twenty years. At present, if one would ascertain the parallels to a
particular form, it is necessary to search through hundreds of volumes
and to visit all the museums--a matter of months of work. Progress in
archaeology, as an exact science, is practically impossible; it should
be easy and rapid, were all the known material always to be found at
once in a _corpus_ and indices.
[Sidenote: Example of _corpus_.]
Only one _corpus_ has yet been formed, and that is restricted to only
one country, one period, and one material--the prehistoric pottery of
Egypt (see _Nagada_ and _Diospolis Parva_). An outline of the system
there followed will serve to show the actual working of a _corpus_,
though for each different subject the details will need separate
consideration. The whole of this pottery comprises about a thousand
varieties. Each class of pottery is denoted by its initial letter;
P for polished, B for black-topped, etc. Each form in a class is
numbered, from 1 to 99, and each sub-variety is lettered. Thus R 63
_c_ means rough pottery, type 63, variety _c_; and this completely
defines the example. The numbers are not always continuous, but gaps
in the series are left where there is much difference between the
forms. In this manner it is possible to add new forms without upsetting
the system, and new sub-varieties can be brought in by using small
letters. The forms are best classified by beginning with the most open
and flat dishes, and proceeding to the most closed forms, with narrow
necks ending. The point of reaching verticality in the sides is a
well-defined middle point.
[Sidenote: Utility.]
The practical utility of such a _corpus_ is found at once when
excavating. Formerly it was needful to keep dozens of broken specimens,
which were of no value except for the fact of being found along with
other vases. Now the excavator merely needs to look over the _corpus_
of plates, and writes down on the plan of the tomb, say, B 23, P 35
_b_, C 15, F 72, thus the whole record is made, and not a single piece
need be kept unless it is a good specimen. How essential such a record
is for future progress we shall see below.
The most obvious step now would be to corporate all the pottery of
Italy. A _corpus_ from Pompeii would be the best starting-point,
as being all of one period and well dated; then a _corpus_ of
Constantinian forms, a _corpus_ of Republican forms, and a _corpus_ of
each of the prehistoric periods. The early history of the Forum at
Rome hangs now upon the safety of little groups of potsherds lying in
a shed, yet unclassed and unstudied, and certain to be swept away some
day by some one who does not value them. Instead of this we ought to
have a _corpus_ for reference, and then the contents of each of the
archaic wells could be at once denoted and published by the numbers of
the types; the historic material would be safe, and could be studied
at any future time irrespective of the conservation of the heaps of
sherds. Carry this out in Greece, and, instead of piles of pottery
lying in the fields or on the terraces of a classical site from the
prehistoric town levels, each piece could be noted by its number, and
all could be published to make the history of the site accessible.
Without a _corpus_ such discoveries are but a pathetic destruction
of material; with _corpus_ notation they would form the basis of a
thorough history of the site and of all its changes.
All that is needed to produce a _corpus_ from a collection is a month
or two of work by a draughtsman, who has an accurate eye for form,
working to a uniform scale, and systematising the material conveniently
for future reference. Some subjects would require collecting from many
sources, but generally all the pottery of one period can be found
together in one museum.
[Sidenote: Successive ages.]
We now turn to the second method for archaeological research. This is
the synthetical arrangement of the material in the original order. The
most obvious arrangement is that by contemporary dating, as by years
named in a chronicle or on coins, or by successive reigns of kings.
But outside of this method there yet lies the greater part of human
history, which can only be reconstructed by some internal evidence of
successive periods.
A couple of generations ago there were laid down the main divisions of
successive ages of stone, bronze, and iron; and then the division of
the stone age into palaeolithic and neolithic. After that followed the
separation of palaeolithic into four main periods in France, more or
less applicable to other lands. Further definition was yet found to be
necessary, and the neolithic and bronze ages were marked off into many
classes, which had to be distinguished by the names of places where
they were first found; and thus we reach a multitude of names, such as
Mycenaean, Hallstattian, the period of La Tène, etc. Such a piecemeal
plan is well enough for a beginning; but it is not capable of exact
definition, it is cumbersome, and it does not express the relation of
one period to another.
[Sidenote: Sequences.]
Before we can think of subdividing a period into a continuous notation,
the first requisite is to be able to place the material into its
original order or sequence. Let us suppose some old country mansion,
where it has been the habit to close permanently any room in which an
owner had died, and leave everything in it undisturbed. If we went
through such a series of rooms we could not doubt their order of date
if we looked at their contents. The William IV room could not be put
to the middle of George III’s reign; the George II room could not be
supposed to go between those of James II and Anne. Each room full of
furniture would have some links of style with that of the generation
before, and of the generation after it, and no real doubt could exist
as to the sequence of the whole series. What is true of a room full of
furniture is equally true of a grave full of pottery. If we compare
together a series of groups of pottery which are not separated by any
long time, there will always be found some relationship between the
forms in different groups: one group will be seen to fall between two
others if it contains forms to be found in each of the other groups,
though these others may have nothing in common together. A fragment of
the alphabet, K L M N O P, must fall between H I J K L and O P Q R, and
proves their connection.
Thus if each form lasted in use for a uniform length of time the
problem would be fairly simple. But it is complicated by the plainer
forms lasting far longer in use than the complex or highly decorated
forms; some may go on being made for a thousand years, others may not
have been made for even ten years. Hence it is needful to resort to
various statistical modes of sorting, which differ in each case. A
complete instance of the process is given in _Diospolis Parva_, pp. 4–8.
On the other hand, the sorting of material is greatly helped by any
clear series of forms derived one from the other; especially a series
of degradation, and reduction of useful elements to mere ornament. It
is well, however, to have a check on one end of a series, by connecting
it to known times, so as to prove which way it proceeds.
[Sidenote: Sequence dates.]
What notation should be used to express a series of sequences must
vary with conditions. Where we can deal with a larger number--many
hundreds--of good graves, each containing plenty of material, then a
scale of equal numbers of graves is perhaps the fairest that can be
taken. Thus for a scale of sequence dates, for the pottery named above,
I adopted 50 numbers, each representing 20 graves.
The final result is to express the time-range of each type of pottery
and of other objects in the graves in terms of the scale of sequence
of the tombs. Thus the date of certain forms may be stated as 33–42
sequence date; 37–70 sequence date; 45–48 sequence date, etc. And when
this is once established it is easy to date all further graves by
arranging the dates of each object found in a grave, for instance in
actual cases:--
Sequence dates. Sequence dates.
30–36 35–68
32–68 60–69
30–42 68–78
31–34 68–78
----- -----
Limits 32–34 68
The larger the group the more closely it is dated, by reason of the
various forms having a very small common ground of dating.
This system enables us to deal with material which is entirely undated
otherwise; and the larger the quantity of it the more accurate are the
results. There is no reason now why prehistoric ages, from which there
are groups of remains, should not be dealt with as surely and clearly
as the historic ages with recorded dates.
[Sidenote: Conservation.]
Yet another all-important matter for the systematic archaeology of the
future must be here mentioned, especially as it greatly affects the
future schemes of field-work. The first requirement for systematic work
of study is material sufficient to work on. And to provide this there
must be both discovery and conservation. During the last century there
has been a gradual growth of archaeological perception; and in place of
only caring for beautiful and striking objects there has arisen some
interest in whatever can throw light on the past civilisations. But
unhappily the ideas of conservation have not kept pace with the work
of discovery. The present system of museums is the most serious bar to
the progress of archaeology. The building, which is the mere modern
shell, of no interest, and often of no beauty, is the master of the
collection, which is restrained and crippled by such conditions that
its use is impaired and its growth is stopped. The past is vanishing
before our modern changes yearly and daily. There is ever less and less
to preserve. And everything possible must be garnered before it has
entirely vanished. The present has its most serious duty to history in
saving the past for the benefit of the future.
[Sidenote: Buildings.]
In a museum the collection is the essential; the building is the
mere accident of the surroundings of the collection, and it should
completely conform to all the requirements. Yet can it be believed
that, even in the last year or two, enormous national museums--as at
Cairo and Brussels--have been built without the smallest regard to the
collection, or the opinions of the curators? The result at Cairo is the
most deplorable sacrifice of the art and history of a great country to
the follies and childish vanity of an incompetent and unsympathetic
architect. We will not stay to detail the entire unsuitability of that
building in style, form, size, and lighting; the constructive questions
of what is needed for a proper museum are our subject.
[Sidenote: Lighting.]
After the common purpose of all buildings--security from man and
nature--the first requirements in a museum are lighting and grouping.
Whatever interferes with these is a detriment which should be avoided
or removed. Lighting must be (1) direct, not from reflection by walls;
(2) full, but not dazzling; (3) in exactly the right direction. Of
all the precious statues of antiquity there is not one that has had
a tenth of its value spent on the best lighting possible. Most are
in hopelessly bad positions, as the Aphrodite of Melos in a weak,
diffused, sidelight; and none have the simplest blinds to change the
direction of the light, so as to study the surface in varying lighting.
To know what a figure requires, only take a fine statuette in the
hand, and try what can be made of it by the variation of direction,
obliquity, and amount of lighting. Then see how hopeless it is to know
a statue in one fixed lighting, even if that be suitable. The only
person competent to arrange the lighting of objects, and especially
statuary, is a successful photographer who has well practised the
lighting of portable figures. An almost vertical light is essential
for all human figures in the round or flat; but it needs most delicate
adjustment to bring out the more important modelling, and many
different directions of light to shew all that there is in the work.
What is true of statuary is true in a lesser degree of every other
object. No other qualities can possibly atone for defects of lighting
in a museum. No building with a bad light can be called properly a
museum; it may be an architect’s triumph, a civic ornament, a costly
patchwork, a marvel of folly, but a museum it is not, if it is unfit
for the first requirements of a collection.
[Sidenote: Grouping.]
The second great requirement, that of grouping, includes the
intelligent display of objects so as to shew their relation to
each other in development, their connection as found together, the
preservation of the whole of the material that should be preserved, and
its comparison by means of casts.
The relation of objects in development requires free space in a museum,
and the absence of any pinching consideration of how to utilise every
square foot. Their connection as found together in tombs and groups
also requires free space, more than is yet to be had in any English
museum. The preservation of the whole of the needful material is still
more utterly beyond the limits of any of the present museums. Every
year a great deal of entirely irreplaceable material is thrown away, or
neglected on the spot, because there is no hope whatever of preserving
it. In the British Museum space costs several pounds a square foot,
and only objects of great value can be reasonably preserved there. We
are driven, then, to the conclusion that the progress of archaeology
and the preservation of the past, as it comes into our hands year by
year, is essentially a question of free space. And that is practically
entirely a question of cheap space. To refuse to preserve anything that
is not worth some pounds per square foot, is the death of archaeology;
and yet such are the necessary conditions in our present museums,
however much we may expand them in their costly conditions. If we once
think of what the condition of affairs will be fifty years hence, when
many periods and places will be exhausted, and yet nothing but showy
objects are preserved, we see that the future knowledge of archaeology
is helplessly bound up in the question of our immediate expansion of
conservation.
[Sidenote: National Repository.]
We see then how absolutely necessary for archaeology and ethnology it
is to have a National Repository, where the cost of space shall never
be detrimental to the collection. I need not enter on the details of
how such a repository could be carried out, as I have fully discussed
them at the British Association, and the Society of Arts (see _Jour.
S. A._ No. 2, 478, price 6d.); but an outline of the conditions and
cost will shew the practicability of the proposal. All objects of
value to a thief should be kept in the strong custody of city museums;
but the great majority of specimens that should be preserved are too
bulky or too unsaleable to be stolen, beside casts which no one would
steal, and such do not, therefore, need more than general supervision.
A square mile of land, within an hour’s journey from London, should
be secured; and built over with uniform plain brickwork and cement
galleries, at the rate of 20,000 square feet a year, so providing 8
miles of galleries 50 feet wide in a century, with room yet for several
centuries of expansion at the same rate. A staff of about 30 persons
would suffice to arrange the new material at this rate; and having
abundant space, no time would be wasted by frequent shifting of old
material. Everything should be photographically registered as it came
in. Glass should be placed over all objects which can deteriorate; but
the amount of dirt would be a minimum in the country, and with the
air-supply filtered from dust.
The total cost of land, building, materials, and staff would be covered
by a budget of £10,000 a year. And this is the normal _increase_ of the
British Museum budget every four years. Hence if the British Museum
were to find room by clearing out objects which are not liable to be
stolen, for a few years, and placing them in the Repository, the cost
of the Repository would be paid for to all time. A mere retardation
of growth of the British Museum for five or ten years would entirely
make up for the cost of the Repository twenty times its size. That
this provision is perfectly practicable is not denied; that it would
be far cheaper than continued expansion in highly expensive conditions
is certain; and that it is essential for the growth of archaeology and
ethnology is sadly obvious. Let us hope that if we are too hide-bound
in England to grasp the new conditions of research, that at least
in America some one will provide such a storehouse for all time;
where some day the history of the world may be studied, when we have
hopelessly lost the chance of preserving what might at present be had
for the asking. If we are to make up our minds to ignore and lose what
is now being lost and destroyed every year owing to our ignorance and
blindness, we must look to the New World to rescue from our misuse the
material we now throw away, and so preserve the history of mankind.