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, their religion, and many of
their customs from the Chinese; and he might have been aware that they
would likewise borrow from the West, as soon as they had intercourse
with it, those essentials of civilisation which would raise them to
their present position in the world. To him their fearlessness, their
tenacity, and their patriotism, were known; and he was so well aware of
their powers of organisation, that he might have foreseen the rapid
development which was to take place.

What historian who has read the ancient books of the Irish--the Book of
the Dun Cow, the Book of Ballymote, the Book of Lismore, and the
like--can show either surprise or dismay at the events which have
occurred in Ireland in modern times? Of the hundreds of kings of Ireland
whose histories are epitomised in such work