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 "archæologists" 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 Archæology 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 archæology in providing a precedent for
important occurrences may be considered. Archæology 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 archæologist 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 archæologist 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