To write of the progress of archæology in this century is scarcely
possible, as the idea of the subject was unknown a hundred years ago;
it is, therefore, the whole history of its opening and development
that we have to deal with. The conception of the history of man being
preserved to us in material facts, and not only in written words, was
quite disregarded until the growth of geology had taught men to read
nature for themselves, instead of trusting to the interpretations
formed by their ancestors. Even down to the present the academic view
is that classical archæology is more important than other branches,
because it serves to illustrate classical literature. Looked at as
archæology, it is, on the contrary, the least important branch, because
we already know so much more of the classical ages than we do of others.
It is only within the present generation that it has been realized that
wherever man has lived he has left the traces of his action, and that
a systematic and observant study of those remains will interpret to us
what his life was, what his abilities and tastes were, and the extent
and nature of his mind. Literature is but one branch of the archæology
of the higher races; another—equally important for the understanding
of man—is art; these two give the highest and most complex and
characteristic view of the nature of a race. At the opposite end of the
scale are the rudest stone weapons which remain as the sole traces of
the savages who used them. These highest and lowest evidences of mind,
and all that lies between them, are the domain of archæology.
We now purpose to review the growth of archæology in contact with
geology, where it concerns man as the last of the links of life on the
globe; and then to notice the archæology of each country in turn, as
it leads on to the times of historical record, and so passes down to
modern times.
A century ago the world of thought was divided between the old and new
ideas very differently from what is now the case. Then there stood on
one side the idea of a special creation of an individual man, at 4000
B. C.; the compression of all human history into a prehistoric age
of about three thousand years, and a fairly logical solution of most
of the difficulties of understanding in a comfortable teleology. On
the other hand stood many who felt the inherent improbability of such
solutions of the problem of life, and who were feeling their way to
some more workable theory on the basis of Laplace, Lamarck, Erasmus
Darwin, and others; vaguely mingling together questions of physics,
geology, archæology, anthropology, and theology, each of which we
now see must be treated on its own basis, and be decided on internal
evidence, before we can venture to let it affect our judgment on other
points.
The great new force which thrust itself in to divide and decide on
these questions is the scientific study of man and his works. Strangely
shaped flints had been noticed, but no one had any knowledge of their
age. One such, when found with the bones of a mammoth, was attributed
to the Roman age, because no person could have brought elephants into
Britain except some Roman general. The argument was excellent and
irrefutable until geology found plenty more remains of the mammoth and
showed that it was here long before the Romans. It was less than half
a century ago that our eyes began to open to the abundant remains of
flint-using man. Then a single rude stone weapon was an unexplained
curiosity; now an active collector will put together his tens of
thousands of specimens, will know exactly where they were found, their
relation of age and of purpose, and their bearing on the history of man.
Not only have worked flint implements been found in the river gravels
of France and England, where they were first noticed in the middle of
this century, but also in most parts of Europe, in Egypt on the high
desert, in Somaliland, at the Cape of Good Hope, in India, America, and
other countries; and the most striking feature is the exact similarity
in form wherever they have been found. So precisely do the same types
recur, so impossible would it be to say from its form whether a flint
had been found in Europe, Asia, or Africa, that it appears as if the
art of working had spread from some single centre over the rest of the
world. This is especially the case with the river-gravel flints—the
earlier class—usually called Paleolithic. Soon after the general
division had been made between polished stone-work of the later or
Neolithic times, found on the surface, and the rough chipped work of
the earlier or Paleolithic times, found in geological deposits, a
further sub-division was made by separating the Paleolithic age into
that of the river gravels and that of the cave-dwellers. The latter has
again been divided into three classes by French writers, named, from
their localities, _Mousterien_, _Solutrien_, _Magdalenien_; and, though
these classes may be much influenced by locality, they probably have
some difference of age between them.
And now within the last few years a still earlier kind of workmanship
has been recognized in flints found in England on the high hills in
Kent. Though at first much disputed, the human origin of the forms is
now generally acknowledged, and they show a far ruder ability than
even the most massive of the Paleolithic forms. The position also of
these flints, in river deposits lying on the highest hills some six
hundred feet above the present rivers, shows that the whole of the
valleys has been excavated since they were deposited, and implies a far
greater age than any of the gravel beds of the Paleolithic ages.
We, therefore, have passed now at the beginning of this century to
a far wider view of man’s history, and classify his earlier ages in
Europe thus:
First—Eolithic: Rudest massive flints from deposits 600 feet up.
Second—Paleolithic: Massive flints from gravels 200 feet up and
less (Achuleen).
Third—Paleolithic—Cave-dwellers: Flints like the preceding and
flakes (Mousterien).
Fourth—Paleolithic—Cave-dwellers: Flints well worked and finely
shaped (Solutrien).
Fifth—Paleolithic—Cave-dwellers: Abundant bone working and
drawing (Magdalenien).
Sixth—Neolithic: Polished flint working, pastoral and
agricultural man.
What time these periods cover nothing yet proves. The date of 4000
B. C. for man’s appearance, with which belief the nineteenth century
started, has been pushed back by one discovery after another. Estimates
of from 10,000 to 200,000 years have been given from various possible
clews. In Egypt an exposure of 7000 years or more only gives a faint
brown tint to flints lying side by side with Paleolithic flints that
are black with age. I incline to think that 100,000 years B. C. for the
rise of the second class, and 10,000 B. C. for the rise of the sixth
class will be a moderate estimate.
Passing now from Paleolithic man of the latest geological times whose
works lie under the deposit of ages, to Neolithic man of surface
history whose polished stone tools lie on the ground, we find also how
greatly views have changed. For ages past metal-using man has looked
on the beautifully polished or chipped weapons of his forefathers as
“thunderbolts,” possessing magic powers, and he often mounted the
smaller ones to wear as charms. At the beginning of this century
well-finished stone weapons were only preserved as curiosities which
might belong to some remote age, but without any definite ideas about
them. The recognition of long ages of earlier unpolished stone work has
now put these more elaborate specimens to a comparatively late period,
and yet they are probably older than the date to which our forefathers
placed the creation of man.
The beginning of a more intelligent knowledge of such things was laid
by the systematic excavations of the burial mounds scattered over the
south of England, which was done in the early part of this century by
Sir Richard Colt Hoare. A solid basis of facts was laid, which began
to supersede the romances woven by Stukeley and others in the last
century. Gradually more exact methods of search were introduced, and in
the last thirty years Canon Greenwell has done much, and General Pitt
Rivers has established a standard of accurate and complete work with
perfect recording, which is the highest development of archæological
study. These and other researches have opened up the life of Neolithic
man to us, and we see that he was much as modern man, if compared
with the earlier stage of man as a hunter. The Neolithic man made
pottery, spun and wove linen, constructed enormous earthworks both for
defence and for burial, and systematically made his tools of the best
material he could obtain by combined labor in mining. The extensive
flint-mines in chalk districts of England show long-continued labor;
and the perfect form and splendid finish of many of the stone weapons
show that skilled leisure could be devoted to them, and that æsthetic
taste had been developed. The large camps prove that a thorough tribal
organization prevailed, though probably confined to small clans.
About the middle of the century a new type of dwelling began to be
explored—the lake dwelling; this system of building towns upon piles
in lakes had the great advantage of protection from enemies and wild
beasts, and a constant supply of food in the fish that could be hooked
from the water below. Though such settlements were first found in the
Swiss lakes, and explored there by Keller, they have since been found
in France, Hungary, Italy, Holland, and the British Isles. The earlier
settlements of this form belong to the Neolithic age, but only in
central Europe. In these earliest lake dwellings weaving was known,
and the cultivation of flax, grapes, and other fruit and corn; while
the usual domestic animals were kept and cattle were yoked to the
plough; pottery was abundant, and was often ornamented with geometric
patterns. The type of man was round-headed. Following the Neolithic
lake dwellings came those of the Bronze age, and as the bronze objects
are similar to those found in other kinds of dwellings we shall notice
them in the Bronze age in general. The type of man was longer-headed
than in the earlier lake settlement. The domestication of animals shows
an advance; the horse was common, and the dog, ox, pig, and sheep were
greatly improved. Pottery was better made and elaborately decorated,
often with strips of tin-foil.
The Bronze age marks a great step in man’s history. In many countries
the use of copper, hardened by arsenic or oxide, was common for long
before the alloy of copper and tin was used. In other countries,
where the use of metals was imported, copper only appears as a native
imitation of the imported bronze. Hence there is a true age of copper
in lands where the use of metals has grown. It must by no means be
supposed that copper excluded the use of flint; it was not until bronze
became common that flint was disused. The existence of a Bronze age
was first formulated, as distinct from a Stone age, about seventy years
ago; and the existence of a Copper age has been much disputed in the
last thirty years, but has only been proved clearly ten years ago, in
Egypt.
In the eighteenth century the bronze weapons found in England were
attributed to the Romans by some writers, though others, with more
reason, argued that they were British. In the first year of the
century began the comparative study of such weapons with reference to
modern savage products. The development of the metal forms from stone
prototypes was pointed out in 1816; the tracing out of the succession
of the forms and the modes of use appeared in 1847. Further study
cleared up the details, and within the last twenty years the full
knowledge of the Bronze age in other countries has left no question as
to the general facts of the sequence of its history. In each type of
tool and weapon there appears first a very simple form imitated from
the stone implements which were earlier used. Gradually the facilities
given by the casting and toughness of the metal were used, and the
forms were modified; ornamentation was added, and thin work in embossed
patterns gave the stiffness and strength which had been attained before
by massive forms. The general types are the axe—first a plain slip of
metal, later developed with a socket; then the chisel, gouge, sickle,
knife, dagger, sword, spear, and shield; personal objects, as pins,
necklets, bracelets, ear-rings, buttons, buckles, and domestic caldrons
and cups. Most of these forms were found together, all worn out and
broken, in the great bronze-founder’s hoard at Bologna.
Lastly in the prehistory of Europe comes the Iron age, which so much
belongs to the historical period that we can best consider it in
noticing separate countries.
From the recent discoveries in Egypt we can gain some idea of the date
of these periods. We ventured to assign about 10,000 B. C. for the rise
of the Neolithic or polished-stone period (it may very possibly be
earlier); the beginning of the use of copper may be placed about 5000
B. C.; the beginning of bronze was perhaps 3000 or 2000 B. C., as its
free use in Egypt is not till 1600 B. C.; and the use of iron beginning
about 1000 B. C., probably in Armenia, spreading thence through Europe
until it reached Italy, perhaps 700 years B. C., and Britain about 400
B. C. Such is the briefest outline of the greater part of the history
of man, massed together in one general term of “prehistoric,” before we
reach the little fringe of history nearest to our own age. The whole of
this knowledge results from the work of the century.
We now turn to the historical ages of each of the principal countries,
to review what advance has been made even where a basis of written
record has come down to us, equally accessible in all recent times.