information and the minimising of the destruction, is all that the
value of the archaeologist's work entitles him to ask for. The critic,
however, usually overlooks some of the chief reasons that archaeology can
give for even this much consideration, reasons which constitute its
modern usefulness; and I therefore propose to point out to him three or
four of the many claims which it may make upon the attention of the
layman.

In the first place it is necessary to define the meaning of the term
"Archaeology." Archaeology is the study of the facts of ancient history
and ancient lore. The word is applied to the study of all ancient
documents and objects which may be classed as antiquities; and the
archaeologist is understood to be the man who deals with a period for
which the evidence has to be excavated or otherwise discovered. The age
at which an object becomes an antiquity, however, is quite undefined,
though practically it may be reckoned at a hundred years; and ancient
history is, after all, the tale of any period which is not modern. Thus
an archaeologist does not necessarily deal solely with the remote ages.

Every chronicler of the events of the less recent times who goes to the
original documents for his facts, as true historians must do during at
least a part of their studies, is an archaeologist; and, conversely,
every archaeologist who in the course of his work states a series of
historical facts, becomes an historian. Archaeology and history are
inseparable; and nothing is more detrimental to a noble science than
the attitude of certain so-called archaeologists who devote their entire
time to the study of a sequence of objects without proper consideration
for the history which those objects reveal. Antiquities are the relics
of human mental energy; and they can no more be classified without
reference to the minds which produced them than geological specimens can
be discussed without regard to the earth. There is only one thing worse
than the attitude of the archaeologist who does not study the story of
the periods with which he is dealing, or construct, if only in his
thoughts, living history out of the objects discovered by him; and that
is the attitude of the historian who has not familiarised himself with
the actual relics left by the people of whom he writes, or has not, when
possible, visited their lands. There are many "archaeologists" who do not
care a snap of the fingers for history, surprising as this