Archaeology - Ancient Cities, Excavations and Archaeological findings Home
New discoveries and restoration of historical sites in Iran....Click
Belize: Maya Ruins and Archaeological Sites....Click
New discoveries of ancient cities, sites, statues, etc....Click
The origin and evolution of humankind and the origin of Human Civilisation....Click
Information on the ANCIENT WORLD
What is the Ancient World?
Images: 1. Colosseum in Rome. 2. The Parthenon in Greece
Archaeology is, as the word itself denotes, the study and discussion of matters relating to antiquity, looking from compara-
tively recent historical, times back to the farthest conceivable limit of the prehistoric ages. By this expression, however, is
not to be understood the more remote periods of geology; for, although that science lends its valuable aid to archaeology,
it is the aim of archaeology to confine its inquiries to those geological periods which contain evidence of human and
anthropoid life. But within these limits there is, it will be seen, an immense area. And the lines along which archaeologicl
study may be followed are many. The most obvious is the line of historical research, and by this smethod also there is
probably the greatest likelihood of attaining to the knowledge of actual facts. No doubt written history is alrgely mixed with
fable, and even its genuine records teem with inaccuracies of varying degree; nevertheless, it is by this medium that the
most definite conceptions of archaic life are made possible. Thus, when two or more historical accounts are collated,
such as those of the Jews and the ancient Egyptians of the Assyrians, and when it is found that these histories of diverse
nations agree in their description of a certain man, race, or state of society, at a period clearly defined by them, then it is
evident that for a moment the darkness of antiquity is dissolved, and an authentic picture is revealed of the actual life of
the locality and epoch in question, with possibly the most minutes details as to the racial characteristics of the actors in
the scene, and their manners, dress, and general surroundings.
And when, as sometimes happens, these records are pictorial as well as written, the result is to give the modern mind
an impression of that archaic life that is almost absolutely accurate.
But while the only wholly reliable histories are those which have chronicled contemporary events, and described persons
or places form the accounts of eyewitnesses, it is not to be forgotten that of what is accepted as history was not put down
in visible characters on stone or parchment until long after the date of the events described. It is quite legitimate to
regard this also as history, although under reservation. For in early times, as still amoung primitive peoples, the chronicles
of a nation were orally preserved by special castes of priets or bards, who insisted strongly on the verbal accuracy with
which the tribal traditions should be carried on from generation to generation. 'Much passes from history in other lands on
far slighter grounds', observes Sir George Dasent with reference to the Norse Sagas, and many a sotry in Thucydides or
Tacitus, or even in Claredon or Hume, is believed on eveidence not one-tenth part so trustworthy as that which supports
the narratives of these Icelandic story-tellers of the 11th century'. More reliance, indeed, ought to be placed on the yet
unwritten records of some savage races than on many genealogies which have been in print for generations, but which
were deliberately manipulated by the chronicler for the purpose of enhancing the glory of his family or nation. Thus, a
certain amount of respect is accorded to the Maori unwritten history, which indicates the beginning of the 11th century as
the date of the arrival of the people in New Zealand. At the present day, this oral history can only be noted and no more;
but it is quite within the bounds of probability that future research may prove this traditional statement to be scientifically
accurate.
According, while it is necessary to proceed with great caution, owing to the manifest uncertainties attaching to beliefs
which, in civilized countries, are now only held by uneducated people, the study of popular tradition and folk-lore is
becoming more and more a recognized phase of archaeology. And this not only means the study of traditional history -
of family, tribe, or nation - but also of the many customs and beliefs which still retain their hold upon the minds of the
peasantry in civilized lands, and of whole races inhabiting regions as yet little affected by modern ideas. A vast deal
of importance clearly attached to such customs and beliefs; and when, by pursuing the comparative method, it is seen
that people of apparently deivers race and history, inhabiting far-separated regions, follow the same practices and hold
the same beliefs, it becomes probable that these have descended to them from one common source. It is, of course,
necessary to distinguish between the ordinary ideas and usages which may be justly regarded as natural to humanity,
and those ideas and usages which are so specialized that there is little or no probablility of their having developed
sporadically in different parts of the world. For instance, such a practice as tearing off the scalps of enemies and
treasuring them as trophies, once followed in Asia as well as in America, seems to indicate a common origin.
Archaeology further derives aid from the study of philology, because, although linguistic affinity does not of necessity
denote racial kinship, yet it is plain that nations whose languages belong to one common group must have been at one
time politically, if not racially, connected. The testimony of place-names is very distinct. When it is seen, for example,
that in Scandinavia, the Hebrides, the Isle of Man and Iceland, a salmon river is called laxey, it is impossible to avoid the
deduction that all these places must at one time have been occupied by a Norse-speaking people. That this was indeed
the case is, of course, a fact well known in history.
In some respects, the most valuable of all the allies of archaeology is the science of anthropology. Written records may
disppear; all memories of traditional usage and language may die out; but physical characteristics - stature, the shape of
the skull, the colour of the eyes, skin, and hair - all these persist in a race for ages, without any marked alteration. Even
when a hybrid race is crated by the intermixture of two different stocks, the pedigree of the half-breed people is at once
attested by their appearance. And, indeed, it is by the evidences of cranilogy, by a comparison of the various skulls found
in the graves of long-vanished races, that the relative position of those races is sought to be solved.
But the section of archaeology which, beyond all others, occupies the minds of many, and is to them archaeology itself,
is the study of the tangible relics of extinct nations or communities, in the shape of buildings, weapons and other utensils,
and articles used for personal adornment or attire. Architecture forms an interesting subvision of this section, especially
those phases of it which links themselves with hitherto unsolved problems - such as the question as to who were the
builders of the mysterious temples and towers in Zimbabwe and the cities and palaces of Central America ( Copan,
Uxmal, etc).
All these archaic remains and many others offer ample material for archaeological investigation.
Weapons and other utensils of iron, bronze, stone, horn, bone and yet; pottery and glass, showing various stages of
culture.
And these relics it is usual to classify and arrange according to their characteristics separating them into products of
the stone, bronze and iron periods or ages.
The earliest implements known to man, other than wood, bone or horn, were of stone, very roughly knocked into shape
as spear-heads, arrow-heads, knives, hammers, etc. By a natural process of refinement, a steady and gradual improve-
ment in style and finish resulted in the evolution of the polished and keen-edged implements which superseded their
ruder prototypes and gave the distinctive character to the stage of culture which they designated the later stone or
Neolithic Age.
When an implement of stone is discovered and assigned by archaeologists to the stone age, it is popularly assumed to
be of very ancient date. Yet, in some cases, quite the opposite deduction ought to be made. For instance, when Greenland
was occupied by Europeans in the early part of the 18th century, the Eskimos were archaeologically speaking, living in the
stone age. A parallel situation is seen in the temporary overthrow of Roman civilization by savage and semi-barbarous
nations.
The Huns, who swarmed over Europe in the 5th century, used bone-pointed javelines and dug-out canoes, two indications
of stone age culture. Yet a Roman sword of even so recent a date as the days of Julius Caesar would be an article of much
greater antiquity. In short, a primitive implement can only be interpreted to denote a primitive race. It may be of 20th century
or it may be of vast antiquity. All depends upon the history of the country in which it is found, taken in conjuction with the
geological stratum in which the object may be embedded.