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 may appear; and there are many historians who take no interest in manners and customs.  The influence of either is pernicious.

It is to be understood, therefore, that in using the word Archaeology I include History:  I refer to history supplemented and aggrandised by the study of the arts, crafts, manners, and customs of the period under consideration.

As a first argument the value of archaeology in providing a precedent for important occurrences may be considered.  Archaeology is the structure of ancient history, and it is the voice of history which tells us that a Cretan is always a Cretan, and a Jew always a Jew.  History, then, may well take her place as a definite asset of statecraft, and the law of Precedent may be regarded as a fundamental factor in international politics.  What has happened before may happen again; and it is the hand of the archaeologist that directs our attention to the affairs and circumstances of olden times, and warns us of the possibilities of their recurrence.  It may be said that the statesman who has ranged in the front of his mind the proven characteristics of the people with whom he is dealing has a perquisite of the utmost importance.

Any archaeologist who, previous to the rise of Japan during the latter half of the nineteenth century, had made a close study of the history of that country and the character of its people, might well have predicted unerringly its future advance to the position of a first-class power.  The amazing faculty of imitation displayed by the Japanese in old times was patent to him.  He had seen them borrow part of their arts, their sciences, their crafts, their literature,