their works of art, that stood on the Acropolis, and it is precisely
here that some of the most remarkable archæological discoveries of the
century were made. The Parthenon dates from that glorious period in
the history of Athens which follows in the wake of disasters in the
fifth century, when the Persians entered the city and laid waste its
beauties. The earlier Athens, which reached its zenith in the days
of Pisistratus, has been brought to light through the excavations
conducted by the Greeks themselves. In 1882 a systematic excavation of
the Acropolis, under the auspices of the Greek Archæological Society,
was begun. The foundations of the ancient Temple of Athena that stood
close to the modern Parthenon were discovered, and numerous works
of art, statues, fragments, pediments, bases and vases, dating from
the earlier period, by means of which we are enabled to trace the
development of Athenian sculpture from the rough beginnings to the
perfection that it reached in the days of Phidias. The style of these
earlier works differs totally from that which we had hitherto been
accustomed to regard as the type of Athenian art, and yet even the
rudest of the earlier statues possess already some of that charm which
is so strongly felt in the works of the later period. Most remarkable,
perhaps, among the remains of the earlier Athenians are a large series
of figures that appear to have been set up in rows within the Temple
of Athena. It is through these figures, dating from various periods,
that we are best able to trace the evolution of Greek art. They are
unquestionably votive offerings, the gift of faithful followers
of Athena, and, while intended probably as representations of the
goddess herself, but little care was taken to give the goddess those
accompaniments in dress and ornament which are never absent in the best
specimens of the later period. As a result of these excavations on the
Acropolis, aided by the investigations of numerous scholars, among
whom Ernst Curtius and William Doerpfeld merit special mention, the
entire plan of the little sacred city that stood on the Acropolis can
now be traced in detail. The construction of the beautiful Propylæa by
Mnesicles, of which remains are still to be seen, has been determined,
and various temples to Athena, worshiped under the different guises
that she assumed, have been discovered. The place where the great
bronze statue of Athena, one of the master works of Phidias, stood,
has been fixed, and through the inscriptions found on the Acropolis,
numerous problems of Greek history have been solved. Every one knows
the story of the Elgin marbles that once formed the decoration of the
friezes of the Parthenon, and which in the early part of this century
were brought to London by Lord Elgin. That act, though frequently
denounced as a piece of vandalism, has probably done more to arouse
an interest in Greek archæology throughout Europe than anything else.
Even the indignation which Lord Elgin’s act provoked has served a
good purpose, not only in leading Greece to take better care of her
great treasures, but in inducing scholars of England, France, Germany,
and the United States to establish, in Athens, architectural schools
where young archæologists may be trained, and where expeditions can be
organized for the systematic investigation of the numerous cities of
ancient Greece and the surrounding islands. The most important work
done through these schools is the excavation of Olympia by the Germans,
and of Delos and of Delphi by the French, while only some degrees
less noticeable is the work done by a zealous Greek, M. Carpanos, at
Dodona, by the Greek Society at Eleusis, Epidaurus, and Tanagra, and by
the American School at Eretria and at Argos. At Olympia the discovery
of the great Temple to Zeus, the grand theatre in which the famous
games took place, the numerous shrines erected in honor of various
deities that belong to the court of Zeus, and of hundreds of votive
inscriptions commemorating the victors in the games, have enabled
scholars to restore for us the ancient glories of the place, and to
trace the history of the sacred city through its period of glory to
its decline and fall. The master work of antiquity, the golden statue
of Zeus made by Phidias, is, alas! forever lost, but it was at Olympia
that the Germans found the wonderful statue of Hermes by Praxiteles,
a find that in itself was worth the million marks spent by the German
government as a tribute to ancient Greece. At Delos and Delphi, the
careful work done by the French has added to our material for tracing
the course of Greek religion. Next to Olympia there is, perhaps, no
place in ancient Greece which had such a strange hold upon the people
as the seat of the great oracle at the foot of Mount Parnassus. The
work at Delphi is still progressing, but enough has been found to
justify the great reputation of this religious centre in ancient times.
We can now traverse once again the sacred way leading past numerous
buildings to the great shrine of Apollo, and to the cave from which the
Pythian priestess obtained her inspiration. Fewer works of art have
been discovered here than in Olympia, though perhaps the soil still
harbors treasures which the coming years may reveal.
The worship of Demeter and the nature of the Eleusinian mysteries are
much clearer since the successful excavations that were conducted at
Eleusis. Tanagra is of interest because of the clay figurines, the
manufacture of which was one of the specialties of ancient Bœotia.
Those figures, prepared partly from religious motives, partly as a
tribute to the dead, are valuable as illustrations of popular customs.
Great credit is due to the American school for the thorough manner in
which excavations have been conducted by it, and while the results
are not as striking as in some other places, so fundamental a problem
as the arrangement of the Greek theatre, which has been engaging the
attention of archæologists for the past decade, has been brought nearer
to its solution through excavations at Eretria. At Argos a head of Hera
was discovered, which is now famous as one of the best specimens of the
Polycletan school.
No sketch of Greek archæology, however brief, would be complete without
mention of a man who exhibited singular devotion and rare enthusiasm
for the study of the past. Heinrich Schliemann, by dint of individual
effort, laid bare the remains of pre-Grecian civilization at Mycenæ and
Tiryns, and, prompted by a theory which for a long time provoked naught
but ridicule, devoted many years and a large fortune to excavations
at Hissarlik, on the coast of Asia Minor, which, he believed, was the
scene of the Trojan War. At the latter place no less than nine cities,
erected one above the ruins of the other, have been found, but the
theory of Schliemann which identified the second layer with ancient
Troy, afterward known to the Greeks as Ilium, has been shown to be
false. It is the sixth layer that represents the ruins of Homer’s Troy.
At the same time, it must be remembered that the Homeric poems, while
based upon historic events, are not history, and the attempt to test
their supposed historical accuracy by the results of excavations is
now regarded by Greek students as futile and unscientific. But this
view in no way diminishes the credit due to Schliemann, who not only
did more to stir up popular interest in ancient Greece than any other
man living, but has illuminated the early chapters of Greek history
which were almost unknown to the scholars of this century. It now
appears that Phœnician traders, settling on the coast of Asia Minor
and in districts adjacent to the islands of the Ægean sea and harbors,
which furnished a refuge for their ships, gave the first impulse to
Greek art, and, although they were outdistanced by their apt pupils,
the traces of Phœnician influence remain in Greek architecture, and
more particularly in Greek cults, down to the latest times. Apart from
the direct bearings of the excavations conducted in various parts of
Greece upon the development of Greek art, the most important results of
the work consist in the vast increase of material for Greek history,
which is now being rewritten on the basis of the many thousands of
inscriptions that have been found in the great centres of ancient
Greece. As the work of excavation continues, each year brings its
quota of new facts, and it is safe to predict that the recovery of
ancient Greece will be noted in future ages as one of the most notable
achievements of the nineteenth century.
[Illustration: THE SO-CALLED SARCOPHAGUS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT IN
MARBLE FROM MOUNT PENTELIKON. ABOUT B. C. 320.
(Imperial Ottoman Museum, Constantinople.)]
PHŒNICIAN RUINS.—With Egypt, Babylonia, and Greece we are still far
from having exhausted the field covered by archæology in this century.
At Cyprus much has been done by Löhr, Cesnola, and Ohnefalsch-Richter.
The cities of Cyprus are interesting as forming a meeting-ground for
such various civilizations as Phœnician, Egyptian, Proto-Grecian, and
to a limited extent Babylono-Assyrian. The result is a curious mixture
of art and of equally strange syncretism in religious rites. It is
one of the disappointments of scholars that we as yet know so little
of the Phœnicians who played such an important role in history. The
traces of this people of wanderers and merchants have been found in
tombs and votive inscriptions throughout the lands bordering on the
Mediterranean, in Northern Africa, in Southern Spain, in Sicily, Malta,
Asia Minor, Cyprus, Crete, Italy, and even Southern France; but in
Phœnicia itself but few inscriptions have been unearthed, and only
scanty remains of the important cities of Sidon and Tyre, which once
flourished on the coast of the Mediterranean. The fate of these cities,
subjected in the course of centuries to so many different powers, is
a sad one. Almost everything that belonged to a high antiquity has
disappeared, and such scanty excavations as have been undertaken, the
most notable of which is that of Um-el-Awamid by the late Ernest Renan,
in 1861, have been of little value. Tombs have been discovered, but
only few of them belong to the Phœnician period in the proper sense.
The Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar, king of Sidon, with a long Phœnician
inscription, is however a most notable monument and of great historical
importance. But the most remarkable find within the limits of ancient
Phœnicia was made a few years ago by Hamdi Bey under the auspices
of the Turkish government. In the necropolis at Sidon a series of
sarcophagi were unearthed which, belonging to the Greek period, are
valuable as furnishing a specimen of the art of Greece transplanted in
foreign soil.
[Illustration: FRONT VIEW.
REAR VIEW.
CUNEIFORM LETTER FROM LACHISH, PALESTINE. ABOUT B. C. 1400.
(Imperial Ottoman Museum, Constantinople.)]
RESEARCHES IN PALESTINE.—Ancient Palestine, likewise, so full of
sacred recollections for millions, has been chary of yielding up the
treasures which there is every reason to believe still lie somewhere
beneath the soil. In 1870, a stone was found in the land of Moab
which commemorated the victory of King Mesha over Israel, about 800
B. C., and forms one of the most valuable monuments for tracing the
history of the Phœnician alphabet, of which the one we use is a direct
successor. At Jerusalem a single inscription, belonging probably to
the age of Hezekiah, was found by accident at the pool of Siloam.
This paucity of archæological returns is not due to any lack of
interest in recovering the monuments of ancient Palestine. In Germany
and England, societies for the exploration of Palestine have been in
existence for the past twenty years, and much important work has been
done by them in making careful surveys of the country, in identifying
ancient sites, and in adding material to our knowledge of the geography
of the country. The combined opposition of fanatical Turks, Arabs,
Christians, and Jews has prevented, until recently, the undertaking of
excavations in the important centres of the country, such as Jerusalem,
Samaria, Bethlehem, Hebron, and the like. A few years ago the mound
Tel-el-Hesy, covering the site of the ancient city of Lachish, was
thoroughly explored by F. J. Bliss, and no less than ten layers of
cities identified by him; but the results, except for some pottery and
a most important discovery of a cuneiform tablet which belongs to the
El-Amarna series and dates from the fifteenth century B. C., have been
rather disappointing. Recently Mr. Bliss has succeeded in obtaining
permission to undertake excavations at Jerusalem. He has begun his work
by tracing carefully the walls of the ancient city, but until this work
is pushed to the extent of actually digging down some forty feet below
the level of the present Jerusalem, it is not likely that significant
discoveries will be made. There are good reasons for hoping that the
time is not far distant when systematic work, such as has been done in
Egypt, Babylonia, and Greece, will also be undertaken in Palestine.
When that time does come, we may expect that many of the problems
besetting students of the Old and New Testaments will find their
solution.
[Illustration: ARCH OF TITUS, ROME.]
HITTITE REMAINS.—Archæology does not only solve problems, but
frequently raises new ones. Such a new problem is that of the Hittites.
During the past fifteen years, a large series of monuments, many of
them sculptured on rocks, have been found in various parts of Asia
Minor, from the district of Lake Van almost to the Mediterranean
coast, and notably at Hamath, on the Orontes. They all betray the
same art, and are accompanied by inscriptions in characters to which
the name Hittite has been given. It is to be borne in mind that this
term Hittite is to a large extent a conventional one, covering a
series of peoples that may have belonged to different races. We hear
of these Hittites in the Asiatic campaigns of Egyptian kings from the
seventeenth century B. C. down to 1400 B. C. Establishing an empire
on the Orontes, they gave the Assyrians a great deal of trouble, and
it was not until the end of the eighth century that they were finally
conquered. Though we know a good deal of the history of these Hittites
from the records of Egyptians, Babylonians, and Assyrians, their origin
remains wrapped in obscurity. The Hittite characters have not yet been
deciphered, although various attempts of interpreters have been made.
The last of these is that of Professor Peter Jensen, of the University
of Marburg, who believes that the Hittite language is a prototype of
the modern Armenian. Although a number of prominent scholars have
acknowledged their acceptance of the Jensen system, it cannot be said
as yet to have been definitely established, nor is it likely that a
satisfactory key will be found until a large bilingual inscription
containing a record in Hittite characters with a translation,
perhaps, in Assyrian or Aramaic, shall have been found. Such a find
may be expected at any moment. Meanwhile, it may be said that from
an ethnological point of view, it seems more plausible to regard the
Hittites as a part of the Turanian stock rather than belonging to the
Aryan or Semitic races. The exploration of India, China, and Japan
can scarcely be said to have more than begun. The notable series
of inscriptions that recall the period of Indian history connected
with Acoka may be regarded as a specimen of what we may expect when
once those distant lands are as thoroughly explored as the countries
situated around the Mediterranean sea.
[Illustration: HITTITE INSCRIPTION FROM JERABIS.]
ROMAN RUINS.—Coming to the last and greatest of the empires of
antiquity, Rome, a word should be said about the activity that has
characterized the excavations at Herculaneum and Pompeii, and recently
in the city of Rome, which are carried on so successfully by Rudolfo
Lanciani. While our knowledge of Roman history has always been much
more complete than that of Greece, still many questions of detail
have only recently been settled through these excavations. An insight
has been afforded into the public and private life of the Romans
which supplements that which was to be gained from the study of the
classical writers. Europe and America have also been seized with the
archæological fever. In Germany, Austria, France, Sweden, Denmark,
Holland, Switzerland, North America, and South America, the knowledge
of the past has been extended through exploration and excavation. So
large is the field of archæology at present, that it is impossible for
one person to make himself familiar with more than a small section;
but, on the other hand, so close is the sympathy between the various
branches of mankind scattered throughout the world that there is
no work carried on in one division of archæology which has not its
bearings upon many others. What Goethe said of human life may be said
of archæology: “Wo ihr’s packt, da ist’s interessant.”
PROGRESS IN DAIRY FARMING
BY MAJOR HENRY E. ALVORD, C.E., LL.D.,
_Chief of Dairy Division, U. S. Department of Agriculture_.
Nearly all industries have their branches or specialties. Farming is
no exception, and one of the most interesting, highly developed, and
remunerative of its branches is dairying. To be successful, dairying
requires good judgment, knowledge of the relations of modern science to
agricultural production, constant study, system, and close attention
to details. Hence it is regarded as among the highest forms of
farming. The occupation is itself so stimulating and the rewards are
so substantial, when brains and brawn are applied to it in judicious
combination, that dairying districts are commonly conspicuous as the
most enterprising, prosperous, and contented of the rural communities
of their section of country.
In all lines of farming at least one “money crop” seems to be the aim,
although this term may include animals and animal products. A great
disadvantage in certain kinds of farming is that the returns come
at long intervals, perhaps but once a year, while the expenses are
continuous for twelve months. Dairying, as conducted by modern methods,
distributes the farm income through the year; the cash returns are
monthly, or oftener, the pernicious credit system disappears, money
circulates, and at all seasons a healthy business activity prevails in
the whole community.
It is a noteworthy fact, that during periods of agricultural depression
experienced in the United States during the nineteenth century, the
products of the dairy have maintained relative values above all other
farm products, and dairy districts seem to have passed through these
periods with less distress than most others.
The greater part of this country, geographically, being well adapted
to dairying, this branch of agriculture has always been prominent
in America, and its extension has kept pace with the opening and
settlement of new territory. For many years a belief existed that
successful dairying in the United States must be restricted to narrow
geographical limits, constituting a “dairy belt” lying between the
fortieth and forty-fifth degrees of latitude, and extending from the
Atlantic Ocean to the Missouri River; and the true dairying districts
were felt to be in separated sections occupying not more than one third
of the area of this belt. These ideas have been exploded. It has been
shown that good butter and cheese can, by proper management, be made
in almost all parts of North America. Generally speaking, good butter
can be profitably produced wherever good beef can. Decided advantages
unquestionably exist, in the climate, soil, water, and herbage of
certain sections; but these influences are largely under control, and
what is lacking in natural conditions can be supplied by tact and
skill. So that, while dairying is intensified and constitutes the
leading agricultural industry over wide areas, including whole States,
where the natural advantages are greatest, the industry is found well
established in spots in almost all parts of the country, and is
developing in unexpected places, and under what might be considered as
very unfavorable conditions.
Dairying existed in colonial times in America, and butter and cheese
are mentioned among the early exports from the settlements along the
Atlantic coast. But this production was only incident to general
farming. Dairying, as a specialty in the United States, did not appear
to any extent until well along in the nineteenth century. The history
of this industry in this country is therefore identical with its
progress in that century. This progress has been truly remarkable. The
wide territorial extension, the immense investment in lands, buildings,
animals, and equipment, the great improvement in dairy cattle, the
acquisition and diffusion of knowledge as to economy of production, the
revolution in methods and systems of manufacture, the general advance
in quality of products, the wonderful increase in quantity, and the
industrial and commercial importance of the industry, have kept pace
with the general material progress of the nation and constitute one of
its leading features.
During the early part of the century, the keeping of cows on American
farms was incident to the general work, the care of milk and the
making of butter and cheese were in the hands of the women of the
household, the methods and utensils were crude, the average quality
of the products was inferior, and the supply of our domestic markets
was unorganized and irregular. The milch cows in use belonged to the
mixed and indescribable herd of “native” cattle, with really good dairy
animals appearing singly, almost by accident, or, at the best, in a
family developed by some uncommonly discriminating yet unscientific
breeder. The cows calved almost universally in the spring, and were
generally allowed to go dry in the autumn or early winter. Winter
dairying was practically unknown. As a rule, excepting the pasture
season, cattle were insufficiently, and therefore unprofitably, fed
and poorly housed. In the Eastern and Northern States, the milk was
usually set in small shallow earthen vessels or tin pans, for the
cream to rise. Little attention was paid to cooling the air in which
it stood in summer, or to moderating it in winter, so long as freezing
was prevented. The pans of milk oftener stood in pantries and cellars
than in milk rooms specially constructed or prepared. In Pennsylvania
and the States farther south, where spring-houses were in vogue,
milk received better care, and setting it in earthen crocks or pots,
standing in cool, flowing water, was a usual and excellent practice.
Churning the entire milk was very common. Excepting the comparatively
few instances where families were supplied with butter weekly, and
occasionally a cheese, direct from the producers, the farm practice was
to “pack” the butter in firkins, half-firkins, tubs, and jars, and let
the cheese accumulate on the farms, taking these products to market
only once or twice a year. Not only were there as many different lots
and kinds of butter and cheese as there were producing farms, but the
product of a single farm varied in character and quality, according
to season and other circumstances. Every package had to be examined,
graded, and sold upon its merits. Prices were low.
[Illustration: A TYPICAL DAIRY FARM.]
These conditions continued, without material change, up to the
middle of the century. Some improvement was noticeable in cattle and
appliances, and in some sections dairy farming became a specialty. With
the growth of towns and cities, the business of milk supply increased
and better methods prevailed. Butter-making for home use and local
trade, in a small way, was common wherever cows were kept, and in some
places there was a surplus sufficient to be sent to the large markets.
Vermont and New York became known as butter producing States. “Franklin
County butter,” from counties of this name in New York, Vermont, and
Massachusetts, was known throughout New England, and the fame of
“Orange County” and “Goshen” butter, from New York, was still more
extensive. New York, Ohio, and Northern Pennsylvania produced large
quantities of cheese; and the total supply was so much in excess of
domestic demand, that cheese exports from the United States, mainly to
Great Britain, became established, and ranged from three to seventeen
million pounds a year.
The twenty-five years following 1850 was a period of remarkable
activity and progress in the dairy interests of the country. At first,
the agricultural exhibitions or “cattle shows,” and the enterprise
of importers, turned attention towards the improvement of farm
animals, and breeds of cattle specially noted for dairy qualities were
introduced and began to win the favor of dairymen. Then the early
efforts at coöperative dairying were recognized as successful, and were
copied until the cheese factory became an established institution. Once
fairly started, in the heart of the great cheese-making district of New
York, the factory system spread with much rapidity. The “war period”
lent additional impetus to the forward movement. The foreign demand
for cheese grew fast, and the price, which was ten cents per pound and
less in 1860, rose to fifteen cents in 1863, and to twenty cents and
over in 1865. There were two cheese factories in Oneida County in 1854,
and twenty-five in 1862. The system spread to Herkimer and adjoining
counties, and in 1863 there were 100 factories in New York, besides
some in Ohio and other States. The number increased to 300 in the whole
country in 1865, to 600 in two years more, and to over 1000 in 1869.
From that time the coöperative or factory system practically superseded
the manufacture of cheese on farms. Establishments for the making of
butter in quantity, from the milk or cream collected from numerous
farms, soon followed the cheese factories. Such are properly butter
factories, but the name of “creamery” has come into general use for an
establishment of this kind, and seems unlikely to change. Placing the
real beginning of cheese factories as a system of dairying in 1861 or
1862, the first creamery was started in 1861, in Orange County, New
York. In Illinois, the first cheese factory was built in 1863, and the
first creamery in 1867; in Iowa, the respective dates were 1866 and
1871.
The effect of these industrial establishments, comparatively new in
kind, is to transfer the making of butter and cheese from the farm to
the factory. Originating in this country, although now extensively
adopted in others, the general plan may be called the American system
of associated dairying. The early cheese-factories and creameries were
purely coöperative concerns, and it is in this form that the system
has usually extended into new territory, whether for the production
of butter or cheese. The cow owners and producers of milk coöperate
and share, upon any agreed basis, in organizing, building (perhaps),
equipping, and managing the factory and disposing of its products.
Another plan is for the plant to be owned by a joint-stock company,
composed largely, if not wholly, of farmers, and milk or cream is
received from any satisfactory producer; the factory may be allowed a
certain rate of interest on the investment, or may charge a fixed price
per pound for making butter or cheese, and then divide the remaining
proceeds _pro rata_ according to the raw material supplied by its
“patrons.” The proprietary plan is also common, being managed much like
any other factory, the proprietor or company buying the milk or cream
from the producers, at prices mutually agreed upon from time to time.
And all these plans have their variations and modifications in practice.