The Discovery of The Past The Origins of Archaeology Alain Schnapp PDF

DISCOVERY
OF THE PAST
T H E O R I G I N S OF A R C H A E O L O G Y
ALAIN SCHNAPP
hj Do i f I I ‘i
IN MEMORY OF B O H U M I L SOUDSKY
AND CARL-AXEL MOBERG
© E ditions C arre , Paris, 1993
English ed itio n and translation © 1996 T h e Trustees o f the B ritish M useum
First published in English in 1996 by B ritish M u seu m Press
A division o f T h e B ritish M u seu m C o m p a n y Ltd
46 B lo o m sb u ry Street, L o n d o n W C 1 B 3 Q Q
First published in 1993 by Editions C arre, Paris
Translated from th e French by Ian K innes and G illianV arndell
T h e publishers th a n k th e C en tre nationale des lettres for th e ir su pport
o f th e English translation o f this w ork.
A catalogue reco rd fo r this b o o k is available from the B ritish Library
IS B N 0 -7 1 4 1 -1 7 6 8 -4
P rin te d in Spain
by Im ago Publishing Ltd

C O N T E N T S
Acknowledgements
page 6
Preface to the F rench E d itio n

by E m m anuel Le R o y Ladurie
page 8
IN T R O D U C T IO N
A rchaeology an d the Presence o f the Past
page 11
CHAPTER ONE
A n tiq u e and M edieval Sources
page 39
CHAPTER TW O
T h e E u ro p e o f th e A ntiquaries
page 121
CHAPTER THREE
F rom A n tiq u ary to A rchaeologist
page 179
CHAPTER FOUR
O n th e R e je c tio n o f the N atu ral H isto ry o f M an
page 221
CHAPTER F IV E
T h e Inven tio n o f A rchaeology
page 2 7 5
C O N C T U S IO N
T h e T h re e C o n trad ictio ns o f the A ntiquaries
page 3 1 7
A rchaeological A nthology
page 3 2 6
B ibliography
page 3 7 4
In d ex o f N am es
page 381
Photographic Acknowledgements
page 3 8 4
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
T A he idea for this b o o k was sug

gested by H e n ri de S aint-B lanquat. I began w o rk o n it at C hurchill
C ollege, C am bridge, b u t w ith o u t the help o f Irene A ghion, Jean-P aul
D em o u le, Francois Lissarrague and K rzysztof Pom ian, it w o u ld never
have b e e n w ritte n . V iviane R e g n o t, G u y G ag n o n and Jean -P au l
D esroches w ere u n stin tin g in sharing w ith m e th eir know ledge o f the
C h in ese w o rld , Sylvie L ack en b acher in th at o f M esopotam ia, and
D o m in iq u e Valbelle an d Jean Y oyotte advised m e o n th e E gyptian
w orld. Je a n -C la u d e S chm itt and M ichel Pastoureau w ere b o th tireless
interlo cu to rs in th e exploration o f the M edieval period.
A t th e C ab in et o f M edals, in the various departm ents o f the B iblio-
th e q u e nationale, at C a m b rid g e U n iv ersity Library, at th e W arburg
Institute, I was con tin u o u sly given help and the use o f diverse facilities.
It w o u ld be im possible to list all those institutions w h ic h have enabled
m e to co m p lete this w o rk , b u t I w o u ld like to record m y debt to the
Vatican Library, th e university libraries o f H eid elb erg , M u n ic h and
G o ttin g e n , th e lib rary at W olfenbiittel, th e M u se u m fur K u n st u n d
G ew erbe in H am b u rg and th e N atio n al Library o f C o p enhagen.
I w o u ld like to th a n k th e follow ing individuals for th e ir help:
M ichel A m andry, Je a n -P ie rre A niel, D aniel A rnaud, Francois Avril, Ida
Baldassare, U rsu la B au rm eister, Laure B ea u m o n t-M a ille t, C laude
Berard, L aurence Bobis, M athilde B roustet, M o n iq u e C o h e n , M arie-
H elen e C o lo m , R ic h a rd C o o p er, M o n iq u e C rick, P ierrette C ro u ze t-
D au rat, M ich el D h e n in , F rancois D up u ig ren et-D esro u ssilles, Yves
D u ro u x , A ndreas F u rtw an g ler, Pascale Galey, Jean -B ap tiste G iard,
6
T H E D I S C O V E R Y OF T H E P A S T
M ich el Gras, P ier-G io v an n i G uzzo, Francois H arto g , Francis Haskell,

Jean-L ouis H u o t, Ian Jenkins, Athanasios Kalpaxis, K ristian K ristiansen,
M ax K unze, C h ristian Landes, A n n ie-F ran ce Laurens, E m m anuel Le
R o y L adurie, K arin L u n d b e c k -C u lo t, Je a n -M ic h e l M assin, C ecile
M o rrisso n , T im M urray, L au ren t O livier, R ic a rd o O lm o s, P ierre
P in o n , F lorence de Polignac, Francois de Polignac, M artin e Prosper,
G iuseppe P u cci, Joselita R asp i-S erra, Francis R ic h a rd , J h o n Scheid,
N a th a n Schlanger, Je a n -P ie rre Sodini, A lessandra Them elly, Francois
T h ierry , G ustav T rotzig, S ander Van d er Leeuw , Je a n -C la u d e Vaysse,
A ndreas W itten b u rg , R ic h a rd W hitaker.
T h e English translation o f this b o o k was revised d u rin g m y stay at
th e G etty C e n te r for th e H isto ry o f A rt and the H um anities at Santa
M onica. I am in d eb ted to Louise H itc h co ck for h er tireless support in
reading th e translation and to all the G etty staff for th e ir continuous
atten tio n . I also w ish to express m y gratitude to the translators, Gillian
V arndell an d Ian K innes, an d to Jo a n n a C ham pness, th e ed ito r at
B ritish M u seu m Press.
7
P R E F A C E TO
THE F RE NCH E DI T I ON
T JL h e discovery o f the past is n o t ju st

th e h isto rian ’s definition o f his o w n territory. Even the te rm discovery
invites us to reflect o n th e m otivation w h ich , since the daw n o f h um an
consciousness and history, has led m an k in d to recognise, preserve and
at tim es study th e traces o f his predecessors.
A lain S ch n ap p s b o o k is a lo n g voyage in tim e, a statem ent w h ich on
th e surface m ay seem trivial. It is n o t sacrificed to the cult o f discovery,
th e e x c ite m e n t o f excavation, o r the ad m iratio n o f m o n u m e n ts; it
seeks to u n d erstan d ra th e r th an to reco u n t. In a w o rk w h ic h , in its
tim e (1952), was a considerable publishing success, Gods, Graves and
Scholars, C.W. C eram (K urt M arek) con q u ered a w ide public in reveal
in g th e secrets o f archaeological adventure. A lain Schnapp has chosen a
different role. H is b o o k is n o t a h isto ry o f discoveries b u t o f th eir
reception. T h ro u g h o u t his investigation he seeks to pen etrate the mys
tery o f th e c o n tin u ity o f m an k in d in its pursuit o f the past. G eorges
D u m ezil co in ed th e phrase ‘u ltra -h isto ry ’ for a particular m e th o d (his
ow n), w h ic h revealed th e structure o f In d o -E u ro p ea n m yths from the
m ost varied Eurasian narratives. In its tu rn the present w ork sees itself
as ‘a sort o f u ltra -a rc h ae o lo g y ’. W h a t is the c o n n e c tio n b e tw ee n
K haem w aset, son o f R am eses II, N abonidus, king o f B abylon in the
sixth c e n tu ry B C , C icero, Saint A ugustine, Petrarch, R abelais and
B o u c h e r de Perthes, th e fo u n d er o f prehistory? Each, in his co n cern
for th e past, w ish ed at som e p o in t to take a variety o f in fo rm a tio n
from th e earth w ith a view to extracting - from the rough results o f
digging - a nam e, a date, a sign; in short, the m aterial aspect o f Clio.
8
THE DI SCOVERY OF T H E P AS T
H istory, such as it is still practised today, is a p ro d u c t (am ongst

others) o f th e R enaissance and th e E n lig h ten m en t. Alain Schnapp, as a
g o o d archaeologist, rebuilds (or rath er dism antles) th e layers o n e by
o n e and reveals so m u ch th e b e tte r th e origins o f archaeology, w h ich
are as old as h u m an ity itself. A h u m an ity w h ic h is n o t confined by the
lim its o f th e G ra e c o -R o m a n w orld. It em braces, in fact, the Egyptians,
th e Assyrians and th e C hinese, those em pires w h ic h had n eed o f the
past to ensure th e present. T his b o o k is a sou n d in g -b o ard for debates,
ideas an d discoveries d raw n from scholarship an d h isto riography; it
tries to reco n stru ct th e often to rtu o u s paths taken by m en towards a
b e tte r u n d erstan d in g o f th e infinite space o f ‘tim es gone by’. E ver since
antiquity observers, thinkers and philosophers in C hina and in G reece,
ju s t as in th e East, have h a d an in tu itio n o f th e very lo n g h isto ry o f
th e w o rld an d o f hum anity. F or over a m illen n iu m in E urope (from
S aint A u g u stin e u n til D arw in ), specialists, le a rn e d societies and the
ru lin g pow ers in particular, refused to allow th at h u m an history ran to
h u n d re d s o f th o u san d s o f years, an d th a t it was th e h ete ro g e n e o u s
p ro lo n g atio n o f a still older venture: th e history o f nature. A t the heart
o f this b o o k th e reader w ill discover th e ‘h a n d fu l’ o f creative m inds
w ho, over th e centuries, ch am p io n ed and finally established the idea o f
th e great an tiq u ity o f m ankind. So it is th at the history o f archaeology
is a p art o f th e history o f h u m a n k in d con fro n ted by nature, or by the
ideal w h ic h w e create for ourselves.
T h e illustrations in this b o o k ow e m u ch to the collections o f the
B ib lio th e q u e n atio n ale in Paris. T h e D e p a rtm e n ts o f P rints, M a n u
scripts, C oins, M edals and A ntiquities have b e en draw n on extensively.
W h a t co u ld be m ore natural, especially for the C ab in et o f M edals, the
‘K in g ’s C a b in e t’, w h ic h can be taken for the oldest m useum in France?
Closely linked to it are th e fam ous figures o f the C o m te de Caylus and
th e A bbe Jean-Jacques Barthelem y. B o th (nobility and clergy) played in
th e ir tim e a decisive role in ch anging the perspectives o f archaeology.
T h e y thus deserve to be cited as illustrious ‘links in the ch ain ’ from the
B ib lio th equ e nationale to th e present w ork.
E M M A N U E L LE R O Y L A D U K IE
Professor o f the C ollege de France,

D ire c to r o f th e B ibliotheque nationale.
9
P iero di C o sim o , Vulcan and Aeolus, the Teachers o f Humanity, c. 1495—1500.
T h e in v en tio n o f th e arts w h ic h distinguish hum ans from anim als was o n e o f the
fu nd am en tal th em es o f G ra e c o -R o m a n a n th ropology and was strongly ech o e d d u rin g
th e R enaissance. P iero di C o sim o , inspired b y his reading o f V itruvius and B occaccio,
d ev o ted an en tire cycle o f paintings to these inventions. H ere, V ulcan is show n at his forge
as th e ‘arch-craftsm an an d first te a ch e r o f h u m a n civilisation’ (E. Panofsky). P iero di C osim o
was an ard en t advocate o f a re tu rn to n atu re and led ‘a life m o re bestial than h u m a n ’,
acco rd in g to th e p o rtrait given o f h im by G io rg io Vasari.
10
INTRODUCTION
A R C H A E O L O G Y
A N D T H E
PRES ENCE OF
T H E P A S T
THE CO LL EC TO R OF A N T I Q U I T I E S
I n the se d e c a d e n t ti m e s we f a l l in love w i t h a n t i q u i t i e s a n d a l l o w o ur sel ves
- willingly - t o be d u p e d . W e s p e n d t h o u s a n d s o n m a n u s c r i p t s a n d
p a i n t i n g s a n d h u n d r e d s more on a u t h e n t i c a t i n g t h e m . C h i p p e d ja de
in s i g n i a , b r o n z e seals decor ated w i t h tu rtle s a n d dragons, b r o n z e tiles fr o m
t h e B i r d - T o w e r m a d e i n t o i u k - s t o n e s , al l d i s p l a y e d on l a c q u e r e d s h e l v e s ;
g o l d e n i n c e n s e - b u r n e r s in t h e s h a p e o f a l i o n on i v o r y s t a n d s , a cup, a
goblet, any k i n d o f a n tiq u e vessel - a n d we comb the a n c i e n t te x t s in order
to v e r i f y t h e i n s c r i p t i o n s . A s i f o b s e s s e d w e s ea r ch n e a r a n d f a r , i n t o o u r ol d
ag e . B l o o d r e l a t i v e s d r a g e a c h o t h e r i n f r o n t o f t h e c o u r t s , c l o s e f r i e n d s
m i s t r u s t e a c h o t h e r . T h e s e t h i n g s ar e b o u g h t f o r a f o r t u n e b y t h e r i c h , b u t a
p o o r m a n w o u l d n o t p a r t w i t h a rice c a k e f o r a n y o f t h e m .
Z H E N C , X IE , 1693-1 7 6 5 .Y A N G Z H O U , C H IN A .
r>
-1—M y w h a t a u th o rity does archae
ology exist, an d h o w is it justified? W h o benefits from its practice,
an d w h a t is its purp o se? H e re are sites, m o n u m en ts, statues, jew els —
all kinds o f artefacts — b u t also, w e are to ld , m u c h less spectacular
rem ains, from tin y pieces o f flint d o w n to c o n c en tratio n s o f p h o s
p hates in th e soil, visible o n ly in a laboratory.
In a re c e n t an d p rovocative b o o k th e p h ilo so p h e r and h isto ria n
K rzy szto f P o m ian (1987) rem ark ed th at archaeology is n o m ore th an
a p resu m p tu o u s b ra n c h o f collectin g , and th at collecting, in so far as
its h isto ry can be traced, is p a rt o f b e in g h u m an . H u m a n beings, from
11
T H E D I S C O V E R Y OF T H E P AS T
th e m o m e n t o f th e ir em erg en ce as a cu ltural and biological entity,

have in o n e w ay o r a n o th e r collected, preserved and h o ard ed item s
w h ic h have n o o th e r significance th an as carriers o f messages from a
m o re o r less re m o te past. H ow ever, th at w h ic h co nnects archaeology
to co llectin g is n o t th e actual o r perceived a n tiq u ity o f th e o b ject, for
o n e m ay co llect c o n te m p o ra ry item s, n o r is it th e act o f co llection
itself, for archaeology m ay be p u rely descriptive and n eed n o t involve
th e physical e x tra c tio n o f an o b ject fro m th e g ro u n d . T h e vital link
b e tw e e n th e tw o is th e status accorded to an o b je ct w h ic h has b e e n
iso lated, c o n serv ed , displayed, associated
w ith o r d istin g u ish e d from o th e rs as a
result o f certain traits observed th ro u g h its
analysis. W h e n an ob ject is treated as a sig-
nifier (P o m ian ’s semiophore), it m ay be col
le c te d and th e n su b jec ted to v ario u s
processes, o f w h ic h archaeological en q u iry
is o n ly one. A rchaeology is, in m y view, the
little bastard sister o f co llectin g . L ittle,
because restricted in th e ways in w h ic h she
can p ro c e e d an d deliver; bastard, because
since th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry at least she
has b e e n o p e ra tin g fro m a p o sitio n o f
d en ial (an arch aeo lo g ist, as everyone
know s, is n o t a collector, and archaeologists
them selves are at pains to p o in t this o ut).
Y uri D o m b ro w sk i, an e x p e rt o n th e su b
M erlin raises th e j e c t ,1 said th a t th e archaeologist w o u ld ra th er b e taken fo r a p o lic e
stones o f S to nehenge,
m an th a n for a co lle c to r (despite th e fact th a t th e police d id n o t have
show n in a
fo u rte e n th -c e n tu ry a g o o d re p u ta tio n at A lm a-A ta d u rin g th e 1930s!). H o w low th e self
E nglish m anuscript.
esteem o f any archaeologist w o u ld be w h o saw h im self o r h e rse lf as a
In this astonishing
illustration M erlin successor to th e to m b -ro b b e rs o f E g y p t, o r to th e traffickers in
erects Stonehenge.
m ed iev al relics, o r to th e R e n aissan c e W underkam m er m entality.
H e was regarded by
m any m edieval H ow ever, w h e n su b jected to scrutiny th e resem blance b eco m es clear:
authors as the fo u n d er D o m b ro w sk i’s archaeologist h arries th e pillagers o f the to m b s o f an
o f the arts and the
suprem e m agician. ob scu re C e n tra l A sian k o lk h o z w h ile th e N K V D [Soviet secret
p o lic e a g en cy w h ic h was la te r a b so rb e d by th e K G B ] lo oks on,
k n o w in g th a t b o th th e pillaging and th e h arry in g are less in n o c e n t
th a n th ey m ig h t seem . C h a d i A bdessalam in th e film T h e N ig h t o f
C ounting the Years2 is m o re accurate in his d ep ic tio n o f th e arch aeo lo
gist as th e leg itim ate rival o f th e traffickers in antiquities. O n e can say
12
INTRODUCTION - A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D T H E P R E S E N C E OF T H E P A S T
th a t th e arch aeo lo g ist is a co llecto r, b u t o f a p artic u la r k in d , m ore

m eticu lo u s th a n th e oth ers, and acco u n table to various institutions,
to th e state an d th e public.
M E M O R Y N E E D S T H E E A R T H
T h e s a n d s o f L a r s a , th e m o u n d o f X i ’a n , th e s i t e o f R e t o k a
P ie rre N o ra , in his w ritin g s, rem inds us th a t th ere are places w h ere

m e m o ry is stored, places w h ic h carry th e m a rk o f tim e ;3 fro m Las-
cau x to B e a u b o u rg , th ese are th e secretions o f h isto ry itself. T h e
m egaliths o f B rita in an d o f B ritta n y alike have sto o d fo r m illennia as
living q u e stio n m arks in th e landscape.
M e rlin is d e p ic te d b u ild in g S to n e h e n g e in a fo u rte e n th -c e n tu ry
m a n u sc rip t;4 J o h a n P ic a rd t show s giants b u ild in g th e ir e n o rm o u s
‘b e d s’,5 an d w itch es appear co m fo rtab ly installed in tu m u li fu rn ish ed
w ith w o o d e n staircases and w in d o w s, dispensing blessings. T h ese are
strange an d m arvellous things, even in th e eru d ite w o rk o f a scholar
such as W illia m Stukeley.6 O th e r m inds o f a m o re ratio n ally a n ti
q u arian persuasion w ere to d o c u m e n t m egalithic m o n u m e n ts care
fully. A six te e n th -c e n tu ry e n g rav in g shows an e n tire e x p e d itio n o f
le a rn e d m e n carv in g th e ir nam es o n th e pierre levee n ea r P o itie rs,7
and a plate in W illiam C a m d e n ’s Britannia o f 1600 s gives us w h a t is
p robably o n e o f th e earliest k n o w n illustrations o f an excavation: tw o
figures are d ig g in g in fro n t o f th e rin g o f S to n e h e n g e a n d beside
th e m appear a skull and som e fem urs.
H o w ev er far b ack w e lo o k , th e m o n u m e n t as an o b ject o f interest
has appealed ju s t as m u c h to th e im a g in a tio n as to reason. T h e his
to ry o f archaeology c a n n o t be d ivorced fro m this d ich o to m y w h ich ,
in a way, is p a rt and parcel o f th e subject. B u t before atte m p tin g to
trace th e lo n g ro u te by w h ic h th e cu rio u s b ecam e first antiquarians,
th e n archaeologists, w e m ust stop an d lo o k at w h a t is, in a way, the
first h isto rical ev id en ce o f th e p ractice o f archaeology. T his is a b ric k
w ith a c u n e ifo rm in sc rip tio n fo u n d at Larsa in Iraq, w h ic h dates to
th e sixth c e n tu ry BC. It is a difficult d o c u m e n t, since it refers c o n
stantly to an histo rical tra d itio n an d to a w o rld far rem oved from o u r
ow n. B u t if w e can get past o u r initial alienation and accept this text,
w e shall see th a t it dem o n strates th e B abylonians’ desire for historical
leg itim acy and fo r dynastic continuity.
I am Nabonidus, king o f Babylon, shepherd, nam ed by M arduk, provider
13
T h e pierre levee near

Poitiers. This
six te en th -ce n tu ry
engraving from B raun
and H o g e n b e rg ’s atlas,
Civitates orbis terramm,
shows the fam ous
Poitiers m egalith,
already w e ll-k n o w n
from Rabelais.
In te rp re te d as a m an -
m ade post-diluvial
c o n stru ctio n , it is here
show n covered w ith
the carved nam es o f
the m ost n o ted
geographers o f the
p eriod.
Scenes o f prim itive fo r Esagil and E zid a , who m ultiplies the offerings, who restores the cities o f
life, engraved by Jo h an
the great gods, with providing hands, sum ptuous with the temples, provider o f
P icardt in 1660.
Picardt, a D u tch the sanctuaries, who increases the gifts, unflagging emissary, conqueror o f the
pastor, drew on
high mountains, thoughtful shepherd, leader o f the people, he who the lord o f
m edieval superstitions
in his dram atised the gods, M arduk, has firm ly pronounced as the one to provide the cities and
scenes o f ‘prim itiv es’. restore the sanctuaries [...].
W h en the great lord o f heaven and earth, Sham ash, shepherd o f the
Black-headed peo p le 9, lord o f h u m a n ity 11’ — Larsa, his resident town, the
E-babbar, his house o f dilection, which had long been a desert and become
ruins, beneath dust and rubble, a great heap o f earth, was covered to the p o in t
where its setting was no longer recognisable, its p lan no longer visible11 —
under the reign o f m y predecessor king N ebuchadnezzar, son o f Nabopolas-
sar, the dust was lifted and the m ound o f earth which covered the town and
temple, disclosing the temenos o f the E-babbar o f an old king, Burnaburiash,
a predecessor, but the search was made, w ithout discovery, fo r the temenos o f a
more ancient king. H e rebuilt the E -babbar on the observed temenos o f
Burnaburiash to house the great lord Sham ash [...].
It was thus that in the year 10, on a favourable day for m y reign, during
m y eternal royalty beloved by Sham ash, Sham ash remembered his fo rm er
dwelling; he happily decided from his chapel on the ziggurat to re-establish,
better than before, and it is to me, king N abonidus, his provider, to whom
he entrusted the task o f restoring the E -babbar and remaking his house o f
dilection.
B y order o f the great lord M arduk, the winds o f the four quarters arose,
14
15
16
I N T R O D U C T I O N — A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D T H E P R E S E N C E OF T H E P AS T
great storms: the dust which covered town and tem ple was lifted; the E - T h e site o f
S to n eh en g e in an
babbar, the m ighty sanctuary , could be seen [...]. From the seat o f Sham ash
engraving from
and A ya, fro m the raised chapel o f the ziggurat, the eternal holy place, the W illiam C a m d e n ’s
Britannia (1600).T his
eternal chamber appeared the temenos; their plan became visible. I read there
plate, o n e o f the
the inscription o f the ancient king H am m urabi, who had built fo r Sham ash, earliest kno w n
illustrations o f an
seven hundred years before Burnaburiash, the E -babbar on the ancient
excavation, presents a
temenos and I understood its meaning. I adored w ith trembling; I worried, I relatively realistic view
thought, ‘T he wise king Burnaburiash rebuilt the temple and had the great o f the site, even if the
ossa humana u n e arth e d
lord, Sham ash, live there. For me, f...J this temple and its restoration’ [...]. I by the diggers in the
swore m yself to the word o f m y greatest lord M arduk, and to those o f the low er left seem to be
the bones o f a giant.
lords o f the universe, Sham ash and A d a d ; also m y heart exulted, m y liver
enflam ed; m y tasks became clear and I set about m obilising workers for
Sham ash and M arduk, holding the pick, carrying the shovel, m oving the
basket. I sent them en masse to rebuild the
E-babbar, the m ighty temple, m y exalted
sanctuary. Specialists exam ined the setting
where the temenos had been fo u n d to
understand its decoration.
In a favourable m onth, on a propitious
day, from the E-babbar, the temple o f dilec
tion o f Sham ash and A y a , the sanctuary,
their divine dwelling, the room o f their
delights following the ancient decor o f H a m
murabi, I placed bricks upon the temenos o f the ancient king H am m urabi. I F o u n d a tio n tablet o f
the tem ple o f Larsa in
rebuilt this temple in the ancient style and I decorated its structure. For the
Iraq, dating to the
link o f heaven and ea rth ,'2 his house o f dilection, I raised the roof beam. I sixth c e n tu ry B C .T h i s
cu n eifo rm in scription
finished the construction o f the E-babbar fo r Sham ash and A ya and built the
is the first w ritte n
access j...] . evidence o f the
T h a t which was not accorded to any king, m y great lord, S ham ash, awareness and practice
of archaeological
accorded to me, fo r me, his devotee, and entrusted it to me. I fin ely rebuilt excavation.
the E -babbar properly in the ancient style, for m y lords, Sham ash and A ya ,
and I restored it. 1 place, on a tablet o f alabaster, the inscription o f the
ancient king H am m urabi that I have read there with m y otvn and I replace
it th erefo r ever.
T h e sands o f Larsa have given us ail astonishing d o c u m e n t, perhaps
th e first w ritte n testam en t to th e aw areness and practice o f archaeol
ogy. N a b o n id u s (556—539 BC) was clearly n o t th e first to carry o u t
excavations to recover th e traces o f a distant predecessor — he tells us
h im self th at N e b u c h a d n e zz a r II (605—562 BC) fo u n d th e tem p le o f
B u rn a b u ria sh (1359—1333 BC) — b u t w h a t is e x tra o rd in a ry in this
17
T H E D I S C O V E R Y OF T H E P AST
a c c o u n t is th a t he is acting consciously and m ethodically. T h e B aby

lo n ia n k in g show s n o desire sim ply to lo cate a place lo ad e d w ith
sym bolic m ean in g , o r to u n co v e r a m o n u m e n t w h ic h dem onstrates
th e c o n tin u ity o f pow er. H e explicitly w ishes to establish his place in
th e longue duree, and th e expression o f tim e here assumes a m aterial
d im en sio n . E xcavation is necessary n o t only to reveal th e abode o f
m em ory, b u t also —and above all —to activate it. A rchaeologists k n o w
(and N a b o n id u s k n ew b e tte r th a n any) th at all excavation is d estru c
tio n . T h e e a rth is a b o o k w h o se pages are o b lite ra te d as w e le a f
th ro u g h th e m , an d o n ly c o n se rv atio n allow s us to slow d o w n th e
ravages o f tim e. N a b o n id u s, his w o rk m e n , scribes an d architects
w o u ld n o t have disagreed. To co n clu d e th e ir e n terp rise successfully it
was n o t e n o u g h to find and sym bolically co n firm a prestigious place,
a sym bol o f pow er; it h ad to be id en tified and restored. In d o in g this,
w ritin g played a vital part. T h e scribe w h o d ecip h ered H a m m u ra b i’s
(1792—1750 b c ) in sc rip tio n established th e a u th e n tic ity o f th e site
and c o n firm e d th e len g th o f th e m onarchy. (N abonidus, u n like N e b
uchad n ezzar, was n o t c o n te n t w ith th e B u rn ab u riash inscrip tio n ; he
fo u n d an d d e c ip h e re d H a m m u ra b i’s in sc rip tio n w h ic h was seven
h u n d re d years older.) In so d o in g th e scribe en d o w ed the reign o f
N a b o n id u s w ith hopes o f a lo n g ev ity equal to th at o f his predecessor,
and to m ake th e p o in t absolutely clear, he added a n ew in sc rip tio n to
th e old, signalling across th e years th at N ab o n id u s was a n e w H a m
m urabi. H ow ever, th e excavation and th e in scrip tio n (old and new )
w ere still n o t en o u g h . In re sto rin g th e tem p le th e architects added
so m e th in g m ore: th e y installed a tangible sign o f an cien t tim e in th e
landscape, w h ic h was to be perceived and iden tified w ith a revisited
past, a living past; w e speak today o f a past m useologised.
S uch a process m ay seem su rp risin g b ut, as w e shall see, it is n o t
to o far rem o v e d fro m w h a t w e today call archaeology. T h e tab let
fro m Larsa affirm s ex p licitly th a t th e m a teria l w o rld is n o t ju s t a
space for m e n to o ccu p y and use, b u t a te rrito ry to be characterised
sym bolically, to be m arked. It is in this m ark in g o f th e earth, how ever
fragile and tem porary, th a t th e p o w er o f archaeology lies. W e have to
engage w ith th e id ea th a t o th e r h u m a n b eings, m aybe to m o rro w ,
m aybe in a few h o u rs ’ tim e, m aybe a few years o r c e n tu rie s from
now , w ill lo o k u p o n o u r traces. U n d e rsto o d in this way, th e archaeo
logical consciousness is b o rn m o re o f co n fro n ta tio n w ith th e future
th a n w ith th e past. T h e h u n te r-g a th e re rs w h o covered th e ir traces
k n e w th at th ey m ust leave as few signs as possible, and in rem oving
18
INTRODUCTION - ARCHAEOLOGY AND T H E P R E S E N C E OF T H E PAS T
th e evidence o f th e ir passing show ed th at th ey w ere conscious o f th e

possibility o f b e in g lo cated an d identified. S om e nascent awareness o f
a relatio n sh ip b e tw e e n space an d tim e w h ic h m ig h t b e te rm e d ‘m in i
m alist arch aeo lo g y ’ can be seen here.
A sig n ifican t b o u n d a ry separates th e slight traces o f th e Palae
o lith ic h u n te r-g a th e re rs fro m th e su m p tu o u s m o n u m e n ts o f th e
E a ste rn em pires, an d this c a n n o t be crossed w ith o u t risk. Yet any
m ark left u p o n sand, clay o r w o o d presupposes th e existence of, and
th e awareness of, such traces, h ow ever subtle o r faint. T h e rulers o f
E g y p t, th e F ertile C re sc e n t o r C h in a k n e w this well: th e ir m o n u
m en tal and fu n erary art was a challenge to tim e. T h e y set o u t to leave
an im m u ta b le stam p u p o n th e ea rth , o n e w h ic h w o u ld resist the
d ep red atio n s o f th e seasons, n atu ral disasters and p o ten tial destroyers.
T h e pyram ids d e m o n stra te d th e p o w er o f th e pharaohs and h id from
v ie w (and fro m thieves) th e w e a lth w h ic h ac c o m p a n ie d th e
deceased. T h e m o n u m e n t is displayed w h ilst th e objects are safely
h id d e n w ith in it, b u t th e ir presen ce is evident. W h a t is m ore, they
can be described; th e to m b can be read as a scale m ap o f th e entire
c o u n try : invisible certainly, b u t in such a p e rfe c t state th at th e
acco u n ts co u ld n o t fail to b ear w itness to it. T h e te x t w h ic h follow s
was w ritte n by Sim a Q ia n and dates to the en d o f th e second ce n
tu ry BC; it describes th e to m b o f Q in Shi H u an g d i, th e first em p ero r
o f u n ified C h in a d u rin g th e seco n d h a lf o f th e th ird c e n tu ry BC:
In the ninth m onth the First Em peror was interred at M t. L i. W hen the
emperor f u s t came to the throne he began digging and shaping M t. L i. Later,
when he unified the empire, he had over 7 0 0 ,0 0 0 men fro m all over the
empire transported to the spot. T h ey dug down to the third layer o f under
ground springs and poured in bronze to m ake the outer coffin. Replicas o f
palaces, scenic towers, and the hundred officials, as well as rare utensils and
wonderful objects, were brought to fill up the tomb. Craftsmen were ordered to
set up crossbows and arrows, rigged so they would im m ediately shoot down
anyone attem pting to break in. M ercury was used to fashion im itations o f the
hundred rivers, the Yellow R iver and the Yangtze, and the seas, constructed in
such a way that they seemed to flow. A bove were representations o f all the
heavenly bodies, below, the features o f the earth. M a n -fis h ’ oil was used for
lamps, which were calculated to burn fo r a long time w ithout going o u t.[i
The Second Em peror said, ‘O f the wom en in the harem o f the fo rm er
ruler, it would be unfitting to have those who bore no sons sent elsewhere.’A ll
were accordingly ordered to accompany the dead man, which resulted in the
death o f m any women.
19
THE DI SCOVERY OF T H E P A S T
A fter the interment had been completed, someone pointed out that the arti
sans and craftsmen who had built the tomb knew what was buried there, and if
they should leak word o f the treasures, it would be a serious affair. Therefore,
after the articles had been placed in the tomb, the inner gate was dosed o ff and
the outer gate lowered, so that all the artisans and craftsmen were shut in the
tomb and were unable to g et out. Trees and
bushes were planted to give the appearance o f a
m ountain . 14
V isitors to X i’an today can still see the
m o u n d (w hich rem ains unexcavated) cov
e rin g th e first em peror. E xcavations at the
p e rip h e ry o f th e m o u n d c a rrie d o u t by
c o n te m p o ra ry C h in e se a rch a eo lo g ists1^
have revealed th e largest te rra c o tta arm y
ever fo u n d b e n e a th th e earth, a rm e d w ith
G eneral view o f the bow s and crossbow s. T h e row s o f h o rsem en an d in fan try acco m p a
b urial m o u n d o f
n ie d by th e ir officers c o rre sp o n d perfectly to th e sym bolic w o rld in
E m p ero r Q in Shi
H u a n g d i at X i’an in m icro co sm d escrib ed in th e te x t o f Sim a Q ian . A n d w h ile th e C h i
C hina. nese archaeologists have y et to b e g in excavation o f th e im p e rial
to m b itself, initial surveys16 in d icate a large co n c e n tra tio n o f m ercu ry
in th e area o f th e m o u n d ...
In ju s t th e sam e w ay as N ab o n id u s, th e em p ero r and his co u nsel
lors set o u t to m ark th e ir te rrito ry w ith an indelible sign o f th e ir
sovereignty, an d in so d o in g they w e n t even fu rth e r in e x p lo rin g a
p a th o u tlin e d tw o th o u sa n d years later by th e A rg e n tin ia n w rite r
Jo rg e Luis B orges: th ey drew a m ap o f the em pire, a m ap o f im perial
T h e terracotta arm y d im ensions w h ic h overlay th e em pire itself.’7 Ju st as th e m ap recre
o f the E m p ero r Q in
Shi H uan g d i, third
ates th e te rrito ry , so th e w o rld o f the dead fossilises th at o f th e living.
c en tu ry u c .T h is is one It is n o t difficult to im ag in e those leaders, engaged to th e p o in t o f
o f the m o st fabulous
archaeological
obsession w ith such a paradox. To draw atte n tio n to th e to m b they
discoveries m ade in h ad to co llect th e m o st splendid o f m asterpieces and com m ission the
C hina. B u ried m ore
m o st so p histicated arch itectu re, w hilst sim ultaneously e n su rin g p ro
than a k ilo m etre from
the im p erial tum ulus, te c tio n against thieves (w ho m ig h t even be the k in g ’s successors).T he
soldiers, officers and
d eath o f lab o u rers an d arch itects was as necessary a p a rt o f th e
cavalrym en w ere
arranged in lines as in process as th e d e p th o f th e trenches o r th e strength o f th e walls.
the plan opposite.
T h e B abylonian k in g and the C h in ese em p e ro r did n o t have quite
th e same vision o f tim e, because th e n atu re o f th e ir p o w er was differ
en t. N a b o n id u s was asserting c o n tin u ity o f succession w ith th e m ost
au g u st o f his ancestors. Shi H u a n g d i w ish e d to be th e first, th e
fo u n d e r, so m u st have n o predecessors b u t o n ly successors: H e
20
INTRODUCTION - A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D T H E P R E S E N C E OF T H E PAST
2?
d ream ed o f fo u n d in g an im m o rtal dynasty; he decreed th at his heirs

sh o u ld be called S eco n d E m peror, T h ird E m peror, F o u rth E m peror,
and so o n to in fin ity .18 Yet w h atev er th e ir separate visions, th e king
o f B abylon and th e C h in ese ru le r w ere in te n t o n m ark in g th e earth
w ith a p e rm a n e n t sym bol o f th e ir sovereignty.
B ric k , sto n e, m arb le — are these really th e best bastions o f
m em o ry ? In G reece o f th e fifth c e n tu ry BC, o n e voice was raised in
d efence o f th e living m e m o ry o f m e n against th e in e rtia and fragility
o f m o n u m e n ts. In a fam o u s p o e m P in d a r puts th e case fo r w ords
versus m a rb le :19
L isten! It is the field o f A phrodite

w ith the fluttering eyes or the Graces
we labor now. We approach the templed
centerstone o f the thunderous earth.
There stands builded for the glory o f E m m en o s’ children
and Akragas o f the river, and for Xenokrates,
a treasure house o f song
fo r victory at Pytho in A p o llo ’s
glen, with its burden o f gold.
N either rain driven from afar on the storm,

not the merciless armies
o f the crying cloud, no w ind shall sweep it, caught
and stricken w ith the blown debris into the corners
o f the sea. T he fro n t shines in the clear air,
Thrasyboulos, on your father announcing
fo r you and yours the pride
o f a chariot victory in the fo ld s o f Krisa —
a tale to run on the lips o f m en .2i)
T h e m o n u m e n t w h ic h P in d ar d ed icated to X en o crates o f A g ri-

g e n to (Akragas), c h a m p io n o f th e D elp h ic ch ario t races, is n o t b u ilt
in stone. It is a p o e m — fragile stuff, b u t for all th a t m ore e n d u rin g
th a n sto n e o r bronze. Intan g ible, incapable o f subversion and so u n d er
th a n an in s c rip tio n , th e p o e m is an o rig in a l w o rk , e n tru ste d to
m em ory. In th e face o f all th e apparatus o f th e great em pires, th e ir
hierarch ies an d th e ir riches, P in d a r proclaim s th e p re -e m in e n c e o f
m em o ry ; an d because G reek cu ltu re also em braces th e plastic arts, he
sets th e in c o rru p tib le n atu re o f th e p o e m against th e greatest o f these
arts. T h e revenge o f th e h u m b le u p o n th e m ighty? O f th e p o o r u p o n
22
INTRODUCTION - ARCHAEOLOGY AND T H E P R E S E N C E OF T H E P AS T
th e rich ? D o p o em s an d songs rep resen t an altern ativ e to m o n u

m ents? A re th e y able to c o m m e m o ra te h u m a n ity d o w n th e c e n
turies? In a w ay P in d a r was rig h t, and th e archaeolgoist Jose G aranger
has given us at least som e e v id en ce o f this. L et us follow h im to
M elanesia, to th e N e w H eb rid es, w h e re the archaeologist has to play
th e e th n o g ra p h e r in o rd e r to lin k th e archaeological rem ains to the
u n w r itte n h isto ry o f th e m o d e rn p o p u la tio n . H e d ep en d s on th e
te c h n iq u e s o f stratig rap h y an d ra d io c a rb o n
( C l 4) d atin g to fo rm th e bases o f a chronology.
In his research in to th e c o lo n isa tio n o f th e
N e w H eb rid es, G a ra n g e r21 d rew u p o n th e m ain
fo u n d a tio n n arrativ e o f n ative oral tra d itio n .
A cco rd in g to this, R o y M ata, th e leg en dary first
settler, established a c h ie fd o m o n th e p rin cip al
island o f E fate w h ic h q u ic k ly e m b ra c e d th e
w h o le gro u p . O n his d eath an im p o rta n t ce re
m o n y to o k place o n th e co ral islet o f R e to k a ,
n o rth -w e s t o f E fate, an d rep resen tativ es o f th e
p rin c ip a l clans w ere b u rie d alive at his side.
R e to k a was clearly an area o f p o te n tia l archaeo
log ical im p o rta n c e an d ex cavations th e re soon
revealed a m ajo r fu n erary c o m p lex w ith features
c o rre s p o n d in g ex actly to th e le g e n d o f R o y
M ata. L et us lo o k at G a ra n g e r’s co m p arativ e
analysis o f narrative an d excavation:
T he information gathered from oral tradition is con
firm ed and enhanced by the results obtained via the methods o f prehistoric V iew o f the A thenian
T reasury at D elphi.
archaeology.
It was to this type o f
‘R o y M ata lived lo n g b efo re th e days o f T i T ongoa Liseiriki.’22 A m o n u m e n t, b uilt to
last for centuries, that
date o f A D 1 2 6 5 + 1 4 0 years obtained fro m bone collagen is correct ivithin
Pindar (fifth c en tu ry
two or three hundred years. b c ) com pared his
poem s, proclaim ing

‘H e was a very im p o rta n t chief.’ H is tomb is by far the grandest o f any
th e ir even m ore
studied in the South Pacific, as much for the num ber o f individuals collec e n d u rin g qualities.
tively buried there as fo r the richness o f the grave goods.
‘H e was b u rie d o n R e to k a at th e fo o t o f tw o sta n d in g stones.’
C onfirm ed exactly.
‘R ep resentativ es o f every clan o w in g h im allegiance w ere b u rie d
alive.’ Excavation was unable to verify this, apart from the young woman
buried at the fe e t o f R o y M ata. Were the men ju s t drugged with kava, or
poisoned? Were the wom en stunned or strangled before being buried? A ll we
23
know is that live burial was still being practised when the first missionaries
arrived R o y M a ta ’s importance would be sufficient to explain the obser
vance of this custom at the time of his departure to the land o f the dead /..
‘Others were sacrificed too.’ T h is is certainly the case with the offering
placed in the centre o f the tomb. T he bones o f these individuals are virtually
articulated (the limbs were bent in order to j i t them in), and some still wear
items o f dance costume. There are also individals, sometimes mutilated, scat
tered w ithin the northern zone o f the site.
‘M e m b e rs o f R o y M a ta ’s e n to u ra g e w ere b u rie d close to h im .’
These were the young woman, the man and the couple found in the deep
grave.2''’
T h e rest o f G aran g er’s excursus is ju s t as fascinating, b u t it is suffi
c ie n t h ere (and after c o n sid e ra tio n o f a few o f th e e x tra o rd in a ry
pieces o f evidence revealed by th e exca
vation) to observe th a t a very precise
fu n era ry ritu a l has reac h ed us in tact
fro m a p o in t in tim e seven h u n d re d
years distant, n o t ju s t th ro u g h th e testi
m o n y o f the soil, b u t th ro u g h the m e m o
ries o f th e native story tellers, w hose
w o rk has n ev er ceased. C o n firm a tio n
in d e e d o f P in d a r’s b o ld assertion th at
m e m o ry is to u g h e r th an m arble, b u t
also a v icto ry o f w ords over m atter. T h e
T h e R o v M ata burin co m p an io n s o f R o y M ata w o u ld n o t, like N a b o n id u s, e n tru st th e ir
discovered by Jose
m e m o ry to th e b ricks o f th e palace, o r to th e surfaces o f tablets; they
G aranêr in 1964.
w o u ld n o t, like th e em p e ro r o f C h in a, b u ild a to m b to the d im e n
sions o f th e in h a b ite d w o rld. H o w ev er, th ey w o u ld b e q u e a th to
fu tu re g enerations th e m e m o ry o f an ex cep tio n al ritu al celebration
m ade th e m o re m em o rab le by th e practice o f h u m an sacrifice. N o
n e e d for m o n u m e n ta l elabo ration: on th e small island o f R e to k a , ju st
tw o stan d in g stones testify to th e tru th o f th e narrative.
M e m o ry needs th e earth in ord er to survive. W h e th e r in scrib ed in
sto n e, b ric k o r p a rc h m e n t, o r flo w in g in h u m a n m e m o ry by the
agency o f bard o r p o et, a fo u n d a tio n narrative m ust ro o t itself in the
land, invest itself w ith th at reality w h ic h is sealed w ith in th e soil. It
m a tte rs little i f th a t seal is n ev er b ro k e n , as lo n g as th e re is som e
c o rn e r o f th e land w h ic h bears w itness to its existence. T his is the
essence o f th e th in line w h ic h separates archaeology from collection;
for th e archaeologist it is n o t e n o u g h th a t th e objects m ake sense,
24
INTRODUCTION - A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D T H E P R E S E N C E OF T H E P AS T
th e y m u st b e lin k e d to a place, to an ^ „
area, to practices w h ic h allow th e m to ?
b e v ie w e d as assignable, in te rp re ta b le
e n tities. In th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry jM - - >< / /
Oi
Jacq u es B o u c h e r de P erth es strove to p
see th e artificer b e h in d th e a rtefact.24 :
F ro m th e E gyptians to th e B ab y lo n i- "OB* il, -t-" jjl
ans, th e C h in ese an d th e navigators o f
th e Pacific, a b r ie f investigation d em onstrates th e existence in very Plan o f the R e to k a
cem etery, near Efate
different societies o f a sp o n tan eo u s archaeology, o f a m o n u m en talisa-
island in the N ew
tio n o f space able to face th e erosion o f tim e. W e see perhaps why, in H ebrides. In the
centre is the b urial o f
th e W est, th e G reeks w ere th e first to a tte m p t to explain th e past n o t
R o y M ata, w h o is
in term s o f dynastic c o n tin u ity o r th e heroic, b u t by the discovery o f accom panied by his
‘assistant’ (to his right),
objects.
a couple (to his left), a
y o u n g w om an
(stretched o u t at his
A S C I E N C E OF O B J E C T S feet) and a pig,
in te n d e d as a guardian
T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e p a s t in the after-life (to the
left). B etw een his legs
is a secondary burial.
P la to gives a su m m ary o f G re e k a n th ro p o lo g y w h ic h it is w o rth
recalling:
Since man thus shared in a divine gift, fir st o f all through his kinship with
the gods he was the only creature to worship them, and he began to erect
altars and images o f the gods. Then he soon developed the use o f articulate
speech and of ivords, and discovered how to m ake houses and clothes and
shoes and bedding and how to till the soil. T hus equipped, men lived at the
beginning in scattered units, and there were no cities.23
T h e c o n c e p t o f ev o lu tio n ary d ev elo p m en t, in som e ways so alien
to practices such as fo u n d a tio n b urial, is an affront to tim e, n e ith e r
defiant n o r th reaten in g , b u t necessary. Plato, in T he Laws, tells us th at
after th e castastrophe w h ic h sw allow ed up th e first civilisations:
H u m a n affairs were in a state o f infinite and dreadful solitude; that a
prodigious part o f the earth was uuprolific; and other animals having per
ished, some herds o f oxen, and a few goats, which were rarely found, supplied
those men with food that escaped the devastation.2<‘
T h ese herd sm en , th e survivors o f th e deluge, had to exist as best
th ey m ig h t in a hostile w orld:
I do not therefore think it would be very possible for them to mingle with
each other. Tor iron and brass and all metals would have perished, confused
together; so that it would be impossible to separate and bring them into light.
25
H cnce trees w ould be but rarely cut down. For, if any instrum ent should
happen to be left on the m ountains, these rapidly wearing away would
vanish; and no other could be made, till the metallic art should again be dis
covered by m en .27
T h e c o n c e p t o f e v o lu tio n a ry d e v e lo p m e n t in this sense im plies
th a t o f arch aeo lo g y : th e consciousness th a t th e e a rth can reveal
objects m ad e lo n g ago. T h is m ig h t seem obvious, b u t it is an idea
rarely expressed so clearly in an an cie n t text. I f th ere w ere h u m an
bein g s b efo re ourselves, an d if th ey left, w h e th e r by a cc id e n t o r
design, som e o f th e ir artefacts b u rie d in th e earth, it follow s th at w e
m ig h t find th e m . F u rth e rm o re , i f w e ex am ine these carefully, w e can
T h e build in g o f c o m p are th e m to o th e rs an d so date an d a ttrib u te th e m to these

prim itiv e dwellings, in
anteced an ts o f ours. T h u cy d id es was o n e o f th e first to articulate this
an engraving from the
Treaty on Architecture basic ru le o f archaeology w h e n h e w rote:
(1460—64) by A n to n io Piracy was ju st as prevalent in the islands am ong the Carians and
di Petro Averlino,
called ‘II F ilarete\ Phoenicians, who in fact colonized most of them. This was proved during this
A verlino gives a present war, when D elos was officially purified by the A th en ia n s and all the
good exam ple o f the
prim itiv ist th e m e in a graves in the island were opened up. M ore than h a lf o f these graves were
view ol th e discovery Carian, as could be seen from the type oj weapons buried with the bodies and
o f architectu re derived
from the G raeco - from the m ethod o f burial, which was the same as that still used in C aria .2K
R o m a n tradition. W e n o w k n o w th a t these to m b s w ere o f th e G e o m e tric p e rio d
(n in th to e ig h th c e n tu ry B C ). T h u c y d id e s’ c o n te m p o ra rie s w ere
u n ab le to establish th e exact date a n d o rig in , b u t this is o f little
im p o rta n c e in view o f the h isto ria n ’s reasoning, w hich is h e re tru ly
archaeological. T h e m e th o d em ployed to analyse th e tom bs was b o th
typo lo g ical an d com parative: th e m aterial fo u n d was observed to be
different from th e w eap o n ry in use d u rin g the fifth c e n tu ry BC, and
26
INTRODUCTION - A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D T H E P R E S E N C E OF T H E P AS T
th e b u rial practice was sim ilar to th at o f a p eo p le w ell k n o w n to the

G reeks at th a t tim e, th e C arian s, placed by a n c ie n t sources in the
C yclades. F rom th e m o m e n t an o b ject o r m o n u m e n t is perceived n o t
ju s t as a sym bol o f p o w e r b u t as an ele m en t o f history, archaeology
b egins. A n d from th a t m o m e n t in G reece w h e n h isto ry b ecam e a
discipline, arch aeo lo g y b e g an to play alo n g w ith it: a su p p o rtin g
voice d estin ed to acco m p an y it d o w n th e centuries.
I do n o t w ish to suggest th a t archaeology as w e recognise it today
sprang fully a rm e d fro m th e G reek science o f history, b u t I w o u ld
like to draw a tte n tio n to th at shift in th in k in g w h ic h alters th e signif
icance o f an o b ject such th at it b eco m es an historical source and n o t
ju s t an ele m en t in th e stru c tu re o f history. A n o th e r te x t d ating from
th e first c e n tu ry BC (so alm o st c o n te m p o ra ry w ith Sim a Q ian)
dem o n strates th e G reek h isto ria n ’s desire to p ro c eed from ob ject to
fact. T his is S trab o ’s a c c o u n t o f C aesar’s fo u n d in g o f a R o m a n colony
o n th e site o f an c ie n t C o rin th :
N o w after Corinth had remained deserted fo r a long time, it was restored
again, because of its favourable position, by the deified Caesar, who colonised
it w ith people that belonged fo r the m ost part to the freedmcn class. A n d
when these were removing the ruins and at the same tim e digging open the
graves, they fo u n d numbers o f terracotta reliefs, and also m any bronze vessels.
A n d since they admired the workm anship they left no grave unransacked; so
that, well supplied w ith such things and disposing of them at a high price,
they fille d R o m e w ith C orinthian ‘m ortuaries’, for thus they called the things
taken fro m the graves, and in particular the earthenware. N o w at the outset
the earthenware was very highly p rized , like the bronzes o f C orinthian
workmanship, but later they ceased to care much for them, since the supply o f
earthen vessels failed and most o f them were not even well executed.29
C aesar’s soldiers are m o re like P o m ia n ’s a n c ie n t co llecto rs than
m o d e rn archaeologists, b u t th ey d em o n strate th e existence o f a taste
for things past and a m ark et fo r an tiq u e objects w h ic h is as old as the
cu sto m o f placing offerings w ith th e dead. T h e soldiers’ in terest in
th e tom bs is lin k ed to th e prestige o f th e site, b u t also to th e rarity
an d ex o tic n atu re o f th e objects. C o r in th ’s a n cien t p o tte ry vessels,
datin g from th e en d o f th e seventh and th e sixth cen tu ries BC, seem
to have appealed to first-c e n tu ry R o m a n s ju s t as m u c h as th e fam ous
statu ettes an d b ro n z e vessels also fo u n d there; th e rediscovery o f a
lost te c h n iq u e confers fu rth e r distin ctio n .
D esp ite all th e sh o rtco m in g s o f th e evidence, w e can pick o u t sev
eral ways in w h ic h m o n u m e n ts an d o b jects w ere deployed. T h e y
27
THE DISCOVERY OF T H E PAS T
w ere used as sym bols o f p o w er (N ab o n id u s, Q in Shi H u an g d i, R o y

M ata), as th e b u ild in g blocks o f history (T hucydides), and as a n tiq u i
ties to b e c o lle c te d an d ex c h a n g e d (Strabo). T h is set o f d iffering
practices is m u c h like a c o m p lex piece o f stratigraphy, w h ich can be
in te rp re te d as best suits th e observer. From N a b o n id u s to th e G reeks
th e aw areness o f th e a n tiq u ity o f o b jects an d th e m astery o f tim e
have m arch ed h an d in hand.
H ow ever, th e aim o f archaeology, in th e W est at least, is to fram e a
science o f objects, o f th e ir discovery as w ell as th e ir in te rp re ta tio n .
F aced w ith th e ru d im e n ta ry k n o w led g e o f c o n te m p o ra ry arch aeo lo
gists, B orges su ggested a m e th o d n o t alto g e th e r
u n lik e th at o f N a b o n id u s and his predecessors. H is
s h o rt sto ry T lon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius describes a
w o rld in w h ic h objects exist only in so far as they
are used o r im agined. T lo n is an im aginary w o rld
called in to b ein g by a g ro u p o f scholars anxious to
d em o n strate th a t tran sfo rm a tio n o f th e spirit can
b e as effective as th a t o f m atter. H e re, n o th in g
exists w h ic h has n o t b e en th o u g h t up individually
by each in h ab itan t; th e language does n o t reco g
nise n o u ns, and th e philo so p h y o f T lo n does n o t
ack n o w led g e the c o n c e p t o f tim e:
O ne o f the schools in T lon has reached the p o in t o f
denying time. It reasons that the present is undefined,
that the fu tu r e has no other reality than as present hope,
E xam ple o f a vase that the past is no more than present memory.30
from th e A rchaic
H ere is a d efin itio n o f tim e w h ic h th e Assyrian kings shared w ith
cem eteries ol
C o rin th , o f th e type th e em p ero rs o f C h in a , an d pro b ab ly w ith all th o se w h o , like th e
w hich aroused the
in tre p id navigators o f th e Pacific, believed th at fu n erary art (o f w h ic h
enthusiasm o f the
R o m an s. p o e try is a bran ch ) m ust testify to th e m ystery and m ajesty o f pow er.
T lo n is n o t ju s t a fascin ating w o rld w h e re th in g s are tran sfo rm e d
in to ideas; it also gives us th e chance to su b m it archaeology to a test
o f tru th . I f objects o n ly exist in the m inds o f those w h o desire th em ,
use o r e x p e rie n c e th e m , h o w can archaeology be possible? B orges
tells us th a t th e sciences o f T lo n are n o t like ours, e x cep t as a m irro r
im age. I f w e lo o k b e h in d th e m irro r at th e archaeologists o f th a t
p la n e t w e can see w h a t m o d e rn archaeologists h id e from us and
p robably from them selves:
In the very oldest regions o f Tlon, it is not an uncommon occurrence for
lost objects to be duplicated. Two people are looking for a pencil; the first one
28
INTRODUCTION - A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D T H E P R E S E N C E OF T H E P A S T
Illustration from
Paracelsus'
Prognosticatio (1536
ed itio n ).T h is is an
im age ot erosion: like
h um an life, h um an
w orks are subject to
progressive
d estruction.
fin d s it and says nothing; the second finds a second pencil, no less real, but
more in keeping w ith his expectation. These secondary objects are called
h ro n ir and, even though awkward in form, are a little larger than the origi
nals. U ntil recently, the h ro n ir were the accidental children o f absent-m inded-
ness and forgetfulness. It seems improbable that the methodical production o f
them has been going on fo r almost a hundred years, but so it is stated in the
eleventh volume.*1 T he fir st attem pts were fruitless. Nevertheless, the m odus
o p e ra n d i is worthy o f note. T he director o f one o f the state prisons
announced to the convicts that in an ancient river-bed certain tombs were to
be fo u n d , and prom ised freedom to any prisoner who made an im portant dis
covery. In the m onths preceding the excavation, printed photographs o f what
was to be fo u n d were shown the prisoners. The first attem pt proved that hope
and zea l could be inhibiting; a week o f work with shovel and p ick succeeded
in unearthing no h ro n other than a rusty wheel, postdating the experim ent.
T his was kept a secret, and the experim ent was later repeated in four colleges.
In three o f them the failure was almost complete; in the fo u rth (the director o f
which died by chance during the initial excavation), the students dug up — or
produced — a gold m ask, an archaic sword, two or three earthenware urns , and
the moldered m utilated torso o f a king with an inscription on his breast which
has so fa r not been deciphered. T hus was discovered the unfitness o f witnesses
who were aware o f the experim ental nature o f the search ,32
T his is an im p o rta n t lesson in archaeology w h ic h rem inds us th a t
29
T H E D I S C O V E R Y OF T H E PAS T
th e desire fo r objects m ay p reju d ice th e chances o f th e ir discovery.

T h in g s w h ic h are a n tic ip a te d in to o m u c h detail slip o u t o f o n e ’s
grasp and, above all, all excavation is fab rication. T h e ob ject o r m o n
u m e n t is o n ly b ro u g h t to lig h t th ro u g h th e act o f seek in g it, and
w h ilst o b serv in g a certain n u m b e r o f rules o f study and in te rp re ta
tio n . Isn ’t th e archaeologist o ften taken for a discoverer? T h e ‘discov
e re r’ m ust n o t co m p el th e reality o f the past b u t im agine it:
T he methodical development o f h ro n ir f...] has been o f enormous service
to archaeologists. It has allowed them to question and even to m odify the
past, which nowadays is no less malleable or obedient than the future.™
In b rin g in g his re a so n in g to its logical c o n c lu sio n B orges hits
u p o n an idea o f archaeology very close to th at o f th e M e so p o ta m i
ans. In th e m id d le o f th e n in th c e n tu ry BC th e B ab y lo n ian k in g
N a b u -a p la -id d in a d ecid ed to restore th e tem ple o f the Sham ash in
th e to w n o f Sippar:
Sham ash, the great lord, who dwells in Ebabbara [the E-babbar], which is
in Sippar, which during the troubles and disorders in A k k a d the S u tu , the
evil foe, had overthrown, and they had destroyed the sculptured reliefs, — his
law was forgotten, his figure and his insignia had disappeared, and none
beheld them. [...] A t a later time N abu-aplu-iddina, the king o f Babylon,
f ...] who overthrew the evil foe, the S u tu , [under his reign] Sham ash, the
great lord, who for m any days w ith A k k a d had been angry and had averted
his neck, [ ...] had mercy and turned again his countenance. A model o f his
image, fashioned in clay, his figure and his insignia, on the opposite side o f
the Euphrates, on the western bank, were fo u n d , and N a b u -n a d in -sh u m , the
priest o f Sippar, [ ...] that model o f the image to N abu-aplu-iddina, the king,
his lord, showed, and N abu-aplu-iddina, [ ...] who the fashioning o f such an
image had given him as a command and had entrusted to him , beheld that
image and his countenance was glad and jo y fu l was his spirit .34
T h e gods, n o t c o n te n t w ith hav in g revealed to th e B ab y lo n ian
ru le r th e site o f th e an cien t tem ples, also show ed h im b u rie d figures
in th e ir im age, sculpted by re m o te ancestors. F or th e B abylonians, the
discovery o f th e past was a religious necessity in te n d e d to reestablish
a cu lt o r to restore a tem ple. D ig g in g in to the earth allow ed for the
discovery o f m o n u m e n ts o r objects necessary to th e present. T his fas
c in a tio n w ith th e past goes h a n d in h a n d w ith a rem arkable c o n ce p t
o f tim e. T h e S um erian s and th e A ssyrians/B abylonians seem to have
view ed tim e w ith th e ir eyes tu rn e d back u p o n th e past:
T he term used to designate the fu tu re is w arkatu, which means, in fact,
that which is fo u n d behind one’s back. O n the other hand the word which
30
INTRODUCTION - A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D T H E P RE S E NC E O I T H E PAST
means ‘in the p a s t’, ‘form erly’, p an an u , derives from a root which means
‘facing’, ‘in front o f’. So the fu tu re was that which was behind one, while the
past was that which was in front o f one’s eyes .3r>
S uch a c o n c e p t m ay seem strange to us, b u t it m akes it clear th at
th e in tellig en ce o f th e tim e d e m a n d e d th e kn o w led g e o f th e succes
sion o f kings and events w h ic h th e scribes reco rd ed so m in u tely on
th e ir tablets. I f to u n d e rsta n d th e past is to see it, th e n
this a ttitu d e is m o re easily u n d e rs to o d , since th e
fu tu re is n o t d elin e a te d an d th e past can be v iew ed as
a lo n g sequence o f inven tio n s, rulers an d victories. In
o rd e r to see th e fu tu re w e m ust tu rn th e o th e r w ay
an d stop co n te m p la tin g h isto ry as a w ay o f discover
in g th a t w h ic h is to co m e. A t th e d aw n o f th e Statue o f a kin g o f
M ari, last q u a rte r o f
E n lig h te n m e n t F rancis B aco n was to take up this
the third m illennium
im age to challenge th e p rin c ip le o f au th o rity : if w e bc , discovered in the
'm u se u m ’ at Babylon.
lo o k at th e lo n g ch ain o f h u m a n history, w e m ust
ad m it th a t th e m e n o f th e p resen t are o ld er (and so
m o re ex p erien ced ) than those o f th e past. T his idea
w o u ld d o ubtless have appalled th e M e so p o tam ian s,
w h o saw in th e c o n tin u ity and even th e re p e titio n o f
th e past a gauge o f th e stability o f th e present. In a
w o rld w h e re w ritin g played such a decisive role, it
was logical for th e scribes to be in terested in the m ost an c ien t tablets
an d in sc rip tio n s. D u rin g th e reig n o f N a b o n id u s a scribe n am e d
N a b u -z e r-lis h ir co p ie d an in sc rip tio n d atin g to th e reign o f K u ri-
galzu II (1332—1308 BC) at A k k ad . T h e sam e scribe reco v ered an
in sc rip tio n o n stone o f S h ar-k ali-sh arri, k in g o f A kkad (2140—2124
B C ). H e n o t o n ly co p ie d th e tex t, b u t in d ica ted precisely w h ere he
h ad fo u n d it. T h is a n tiq u arian o d d ity o f the neo-B ab y lo n ian s is n o t
an isolated case. In th e B ritish M u se u m th ere is a tablet o n to w h ic h
an an o n y m o u s scribe has co p ied th e in sc rip tio n from th e base o f a
statue w h ic h a m e rc h a n t o f M ari had d ed icated to th e go d Sham ash
d u rin g th e p re-S arg o n ic p e rio d (second h a lf o f th e th ird m illen n iu m
B C ). T h e archaic scrip t is perfectly rep ro d u ced , and th e tablet ends
w ith a c o m m e n ta ry w h ic h tells us th a t th e statue was set up in the E -
b ab b ar (o f Sippar).36
To th e en th u siasm fo r co llectin g m u st be ad d ed a reverence for
sacred objects. It was a M e so p o ta m ia n tra d itio n fo r th e c o n q u e ro r to
haul away th e cu lt statues o f th e c o n q u e re d and to erect th e m in his
o w n tem p les. In th e palace o f K in g N e b u c h a d n e z z a r in B abylon,
THE DISCOVERY OF T H E P AS T
co n sid e re d by its b u ild e r to b e a tru ly great m arvel o f arch itectu re,

G e rm a n archaeologists discovered w h a t th e y called th e ‘m u s e u m ’.
T h is was an a sso rtm e n t o f statues an d tablets ra n g in g from th e
m id d le o f th e th ird m ille n n iu m to th e en d o f th e sev enth c e n tu ry
BC. H e re E c k a rd U n g e r b elie v ed th a t h e was lo o k in g at th e first
m u seu m in an tiq u ity .37 H is in te rp re ta tio n sh o u ld o f co urse be quali
fied, since th e id ea o f a m u se u m o p e n to th e p u b lic seem s o d dly
an ach ro n istic in th e M e so p o tam ian w orld. It is m o re likely th a t such
an a c c u m u la tio n o f cu lt objects an d tablets o f v ary in g o rig in was
p reserv ed because, for religious reasons, it w o u ld have b ee n difficult
to destroy th e m . Like in sc rip tio n s, c u lt objects have th e ir o w n p o w er
an d m ust th erefo re be k ep t in a place w h e re th e y w o u ld n o t be d a n
gerous. A t N ip p u r, in a level o f th e sam e p e rio d , a ja r was fo u n d
c o n ta in in g a series o f objects d ating back to
m o re a n c ie n t tim es: a tab let b e a rin g a plan
o f th e to w n , b rick s an d tablets o f th e
S u m e ria n p e rio d , c o n tra c ts d a tin g to th e
e n d o f th e se c o n d m ille n n iu m BC. T h ese
d o cu m en ts had b e e n deliberately s e le c te d 38
and show th a t th e scribes w ere in tere ste d in
an tiquities.
T h e M esopotam ians w ere th e first to dis
cover th at n o th in g is im m u n e to th e d estru c
tive h a n d o f tim e, e x c e p t — to a certain
e x te n t - th a t w h ic h is b u rie d in th e soil. To
g u ard against th e effac em en t o f m em ory,
w h a t b e tte r w ay th an to leave a fo u n d a tio n
te x t b u rie d b e n e a th a te m p le o r palace, o r
in sc rib e d o n th e reverse o f its bas-reliefs.
A ddressed to fu tu re g en e ra tio n s, it is fo r
th e m to find, d e c ip h e r an d re -b u ry w ith a
Tablet b e arin g on one fresh in s c rip tio n ,39 a lin k in th e c o n tin u o u s chain o f m em ory. As
side an im pression of a
B orges suggested, th e soil is ready to speak o f the rem o test past, and
S um erian in scrip tio n
from th e e n d o f the it m atters little w h e th e r a k in g o r an archaeologist poses th e ques
th ird m ille n n iu m bc,
tions. S uch was th e co n clusion arrived at by the N o rfo lk an tiq u ary
and o n the o th e r a
co m m e n tary by an Sir T h o m as B row ne, an d it is n o t su rp risin g th at Borges, in the last
a n tiq u arian scribe o f
lin e o f his te x t, a n n o u n c e s th a t he is in th e process o f tran slatin g
the sixth c en tu ry b g .
B ro w n e ’s o w n w o rk on fu n erary u rn s.4"
32
INTRODUCTION - A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D T H E P R E S E N C E OF T H E PAS T
G L O R Y , LO V E A N D M E M O R Y IN M E D I E V A L PERSIA
T h e fabric o f h isto ry is a fragile th in g , b u t archaeology w ill always

preserv e som e o f th e threads. H ow ev er, fo r m e m o ry to persist
m a n k in d m ust observe, in te rp re t and create th e narrative u p o n the
b e d ro c k o f m aterial things. O n e o f th e m o st fascinating trad itio n s
u n itin g m e m o ry an d m o n u m e n t co m es to us fro m th e Iran ian
p la te a u .41 T h e re , som e kilom etres from th e presen t tow n o f K irm an -
shah, th e Sasanian k in g K hu srau erected som e ex trao rd in ary reliefs in
th e caves o f T aq -i-B u stan . D a tin g to th e b e g in n in g o f th e sixth ce n
tu ry AD, these d o m in a te d th e landscape in a place situated o n th e
ro u te b e tw e e n n o rth e rn M eso p o tam ia and the Iranian plateau. T h e
facade o f th e cave is carved w ith pilasters b e arin g o rn a te floral m otifs
su p p o rtin g an arch; in th e cen tre is a d iad em and tw o w in g e d figures.
W ith in th e arch are tw o groups o f sculptures, o n e above th e o th er;
th e lo w er d ep icts a h o rse m a n in a rm o u r id e n tifie d as K h u srau II,
k in g o f Persia from 590 to 628 AD, th e u p p e r depicts tw o m en and a
w o m a n , id en tified as th e g od A h u ra-M azd a cro w n in g th e sovereign
w h ile th e goddess A nahita (left) holds a crow n and a vessel.
T h is relief, o n e o f th e best k n o w n w ith in th e Sasanian trad itio n ,
was d escrib ed m any tim es by M u slim au th o rs fro m th e te n th c en tu ry
onw ards. A t first th ey associated th e tw o m ale figures in the u p p er
re lie f w ith th e k in g K hu srau and his general and architect, Farhad.
T h e fem ale was said to be S h irin , th e C h ristian w ife o f th e m o narch.
D u r in g th e e le v e n th c e n tu ry th e p o e t N iz a m i o f G an jah based a
h u g ely successful p o e m u p o n this scenario. Khusrau and Shirin is a
so rt o f saga in th e A rth u ria n g en re w h ic h tells o f th e love o f th e
arch itect fo r th e k in g ’s w ife. Farhad, hopelessly in love w ith S hirin,
seduces h e r by m eans o f his fabulous talents as a sc u lp to r and an
architect. H e creates w o n d e rfu l m o n u m e n ts and w orks o f art for the
k in g and his co n so rt. T h is M e rlin o f th e East thus becam e th e b u ilder
o f th e m o n u m e n t at T aq -i-B u stan . T h e ro m an ce o f th e a rch itect and
th e q u e e n is illustrated in a series o f Persian illu m in ated m anuscripts
o f th e fifte e n th an d six te e n th c e n tu rie s. Strange in d e e d th a t these
reliefs, w h ic h w ere o rig in ally created to celebrate th e g lo ry o f the
m o n arch , sh o u ld have co m e to signify his supposed m isfortune.
33
O pposite:
1. R e lie f from th e cave TH E D I S C O V E R Y OF A R C H A E O L O G Y
o f T aq-i-B ustan (Iran),
sixth c en tu ry a d . A s t o r m y se a
2. F ifte en th -ce n tu ry
Persian m anuscripts:
a. Farhad prepares to
F or archaeology to have a real existence it is n o t e n o u g h to observe
carve the m o u n tain ; on th e stam p o f tim e u p o n th e soil in th e shape o f a m o n u m e n t o r a
his left is th e relief.
series o f objects. It has to b e a ck n o w led g ed th at any discovery is n o t
b. Shirin visits Farhad,
w h o is sculpting th e w h o lly accidental, an d th at objects and m o n u m en ts b e c o m e p art o f
relief.
th e landscape by m eans o f dem onstrable, observable processes. It is
c .T h e sam e setting, but
here the relief appears n o t th a t N a b o n id u s an d Strabo and m any o th e r m inds w ere unaw are
in the b a ck g ro u n d and
o f this, b u t received w isd o m in an tiq u ity and d u rin g the M id d le Ages
the horsem an has
disappeared from it. p re fe rre d to see flin t artefacts as ‘th u n d e rb o lts ’ o r ‘e lf-sh o t’, ra th e r
A bove: A ‘th u n d e rb o lt’ th an as objects shaped by th e h a n d o f m an. H isto ry o f th e k n o w ledge

strik in g Ensisheim in
o f th e past is suffused w ith paradox. W h ile som e individuals e n q u ired
the L ow er R h in e
region, fifteen th - rig o ro u sly in to th e o rig in s o f objects and m o n u m en ts, m o st o f th e ir
c en tu ry engraving.
c o n te m p o ra ries p re fe rred to see these sam e objects as th e p ro d u c t o f
F or a lo n g tim e the
o rig in o f ‘cerau n ites’ th e m agical pow ers o f m ysterious beings, o r o f strange natural p h e
was attrib u te d to n o m en a. T h e discovery o f stratigraphy — the chro n o lo g ical study o f
th u n d e r and lightning.
th e deposits laid d o w n u p o n th e e a rth ’s surface — is usually associated
w ith th e in v e n tio n o f p re h isto ry d u rin g th e n in e te e n th c en tu ry ;
som e S can d in av ian archaeologists, how ever, h a d already evolved a
stratigraphic in te rp re ta tio n o f tu m u li in th e seventeeth cen tu ry .42
T h e h isto ry o f archaeology, fro m a n tiq u ity to th e p re sen t day, is
34
I N T R O D U C T I O N — A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D T H E P R E S E N C E OF T H E P AST
'-W
IS *
2b
35
n o t a loose h isto ry o f th e progress o f k now ledge. It is m u ch m o re

like an a c c o u n t o f a sea tro u b le d by v io le n t waves, w h ic h cast up
shells on th e shore th a t are th e n w ashed away by o th e r waves.
T h e first wave, in a challenge to w ritte n trad itio n , established the
im p o rta n c e o f objects over texts in m atters o f historical p ro o f.43 For
th e antiq u aries o f th e six teen th and sev en teen th cen tu ries th e o b ject
was a direct, tangible and in disputable source; in fact, all b u t a tim e
m achine. In 1638, O le W o rm , A n tiq u a ry -R o y a l o f
BANG DILUVEEN DE L’h6P!TA L. D e n m a rk an d N orw ay, addressed th e fo llo w in g
Prem ia's Coupe dans le gens longitudinal.
le tte r to the bishop o f Stavanger:
jUtn'ft**V lSi/ex It will be a light task for you i f you g et some young
m an (preferably a student with some ability in painting)
to go the rounds o f the deans and pastors with a letter
o f recommendation fro m yourself. [ ...] H e should take a
note o f (1) the site, w hat county and parish it is in, (2)
the orientation, eastwards, westwards, and so on, (3) the
dimensions o f the m onum ent, its length, breadth, and
thickness, (4) he should m ake a drawing showing the
external appearance and structure o f the m onum ent, (5)
he should add the interpretation he decides on, (6) local
1. Sable jaune argilo-fermgineux.
2. Lit dc silcx routes et brisfe, entremfil& de grarier.
3. Sable rcrt. stories about the m onum ent, even i f fanciful, (7) note
B. Deiixiemc conche. (D etritique, Al. Brong.). . . 3“ . »*
1. 1. 1.1 . Masse tie silcx roulds et brisks, infills de gravier
et de sable ferrogiueux.—An bos dc cette masse les sues oat
worthy events in the vicinity, together w ith any other
de la tendancc 4 former des lits Obliques.
2. Les memes silex formant iuic large bandc dam du particulars that m ay be material to our investigations ,44
sable v ert *
3. 3. 3. Les monies silex formant trois veinra sinoeuscs
dans du sable noir, teint de cette couleur par one matikre O le W o rm ’s p ro g ram m e was th e same as th at o f
cbarbouueusc provcnant dc la decomposition da lignite.
I. i . Yeine de sable blanc renfermant one trainee dcsilex
ct deux bandes d’argilc. any m o d e rn arch aeo lo g ical carto g ra p h ic survey.
5. Veiae de sable rcrt. _______
5®. 50 H e aim ed to establish a precise in v en to ry o f each
— Ces trois marques indiquent des iustrumens cdtiques ea silex
qui ont 616 trour<Ss dans la masse diluvienne. m o n u m e n t, and to assign to each a definite and
d etectab le place in a greater order. T h e d e sc rip
L ongitudinal section tio n d e p e n d e d u p o n a visual assessm ent carrie d o u t o n th e site, an
o f an alluvial bank,
analytical draw ing, m easurem ents, and a survey o f local o p in io n —the
draw n by B o u ch er de
Perthes in 1847. e n tire range o f ex p ertise. T h e se co n d wave co n firm s a th e o ry o f
Taken fro m his
arch aeo lo g ical e v o lu tio n d e fin e d m o st clearly by th e C o m te de
Antiquites ccltiqucs ct
antcdihwiemies (1847), Caylus:
this draw in g o f a
I should like us to seek less to d a z zle than to instruct, and to jo in the
stratigraphic section
m ade it possible to A ncients more frequently in their m ethod o f comparison which is to the a n ti
establish a geological quary what observation and experim ent are to the physicist. The inspection o f
chronology.
several m onuments, carefully compared, m ay reveal their purpose, in the same
way that the ordered consideration o f several effects o f nature m ay reveal their
principle; so excellent is this m ethod that the best way to convince the a n ti
quary and the physicist is to confront the first w ith new documents and the
36
INTRODUCTION - ARCHAEOLOGY AND T H E P R E S E N C E OF T H E PAS T
second with new experiments. T he difference lies in the fa c t that the physicist,
so to speak, always has nature at his disposal and his instruments to hand,
and is always in a position to check and repeat his experiments, whereas the
antiquary is often obliged to seek fa r afield jo r the fragments he needs for
comparison,4d
W h a t was b e g u n by th e first h u n te r-g a th e rers was co m p le ted by
th e scholars o f th e E n lig h te n m e n t — th e en co d in g o f a rigorous and
exact science o f arch aeo lo g ical rem ains. To rid archaeology o f th e
dross o f antiquarianism a th ird wave was necessary, that o f com parative
stratigraphy, still a cen tu ry away. In o rd er to b rin g it about, B o u c h er
de P erthes had to c o n te n d w ith th e p rin cip al scholars o f his day.
It was a lo n g , slow m arch w h ic h led to the em erg en ce o f archaeol
ogy — n o t its status n o r its o b ject, b u t its m eth o d , c o n stru c te d u p o n
its trin ity o f p rinciples: typology, te c h n o lo g y and stratigraphy.
1 D o m b ro v sk i 1979 24 B o u ch e r de Perthes 1847, p. 16.

2 A bdessalam 1970. 25 Plato, Protagoras. 322 a—b, trans.
3 N o ra 1984. C .C .W .Taylor, O xford, 1976.
4 M ichcll 1982, p. 24. 26 Plato, The Laws HI, 677e—678a, trans.
5 M ichcll 1982, p. 25. T. Taylor, N e w York and L ondon, 1984.
6 M ichell 1982, p. lOff. 27 Ibid. 678c.
7 M ichcll 1982, p. 41. 28 T h ucydides, History of the Peloponnesian
8 M ichell 1982, p. 122. War, I.viii, trans. R . W arner,
9 H um anity. E x cerp t taken from th e French H a rm o n d sw o rth , 1972.
translation o f L). A rnold. 29 Strabo, Geography,VIII.6.23, trans.
10 Break in th e text. H .L .Jo n es, L ondon, 1917.
11 Break in th e text. 30 Borges 1985, p. 25. C om pare B orges'
12 N a m e o f th e ziggurat o l Larsa. definition w ith St A ugustine, Con[essions.
13 T h e renyu o r ‘m an -fish ’ appears to be a XIV, 17, see Pom ian 1984, pp. 2 4 6 -5 0 .
type o f aquatic m am m al; som e k in d o f 31 B orges 1985, p. 28.
seal o r w hale have b een suggested as 32 Ibid.. pp. 28—9.
possibilities. 33 Ibid., p. 29.
14 Riroi'ii: o f [he Grand Historian: Qiii Dynasty 34 K ing 1912, pp. 121—3. See also Cassm
bv Sima Q ia n , trans. B u rto n W atson, 1969, p. 243. and G lassner 1993, p. 24.
H o n g K ong, N e w York. 1993, pp. 63—1. 35 Cassin 1969. p. 243; see also Glassner
15 See C h en g Y o n g and L iT o n g 1983. 1993, p. 24.
16 Ibid. 36 Sollberger 1967.
17 B orges 1981, p. 31. 37 U n g e r 1931.
18 B orges 1964, p. 4. 38 H ilprecht 1903.
19 Svenbro 1976. 39 L ackenbacher 1990, chap.V, pp. 151-73.
20 Pindar, Pytllia 6, lines 1-1 8, trans. 40 B orges 1985.
R . L attnnore, C hicago, 1976. 41 S oucek 1974.
21 G aranger 1980. 42 K lin d t-Jen sen 1975, pp. 3 0 -3 1 .
22 T h e legendary coloniser o f th e Shepherd 43 M o m igliano 1983.
Islands. 44 K lindt-Jensen 1975, p. 20.
23 G aranger 1980, pp. 1 96-7. 45 C aylus 1752. Ill—IV.
37
38
C H A P T E R
ANTI QUE AND

M E D I E V A L
S O U R C E S
A single letter shines between two p o in ts and this single sign,
. L . , m a r k s t h e f o r e n a m e . N e x t is e n g r a v e d w h a t I b e l i e v e t o be a n M
b u t w h i c h is i n c o m p l e t e : A \ . A p a r t h a s g o n e m i s s i n g w h e r e a p i e c e o f s t o n e
h a s b r o k e n of f . I s i t a M a r i u s , a M a r c i u s or a M e t e l l u s w h o l i e s h e r e ?
N o o ne can k n o w for c e r t a i n . T h e b r o k e n l e t te rs rest here, t h e i r l in e s
m u t i l a t e d , a n d in the c o n f u s i o n o f characters the m e a n i n g has been lost.
S h o u l d w e be s u r p r i s e d t h a t m e n s h o u l d d i e ? M o n u m e n t s c r u m b l e ;
d e a t h c o m es e v e n to s t o n e s a n d n a m e s .
A U SO N 1U S, OX TIIIJ V I / w ,/ -' \ ' i i > ! \ A M Rl i i . l - . , Of A CIAHAIS IA C I A \
w have always k n o w n , and the

h u n te r-g a th e re rs o f th e m o st distant p erio d s knew , th at th ere w ere
C hristians excavating
the m o u n ta in in
search o f the bones o f
p e o p le b e fo re us. P erhaps th e c y n e g e tic b e g in n in g s o f h u m a n ity St E tienne, evangelist
o f E chternach,
m ig h t explain m a n ’s d e e p -ro o te d a tte n tio n to th e traces left by the
elev en th -cen tu ry
o th e r individuals o f his species. F or to m ove aro und, to find food, to m anuscript
illum ination. T h e
sh e lte r w ith in n atu re, o n e m u st id en tify the fleetin g signs w ith o u t
search for relics
w h ic h life is n o t possible. In o u r in d u strial societies archaeologists req u ired the
follow (or p recede, w h e n th ey can) th e m achines w h ic h dig up the exploration o f the soil.
soil. T h e y believe them selves, th ro u g h th e ir k now ledge, delegated to

o bserve th e m e n o f th e past, an d w ith th e ir m in u te and com ical
a tte n tio n to detail th ey recover rem ains w h ic h are often so difficult
to o b serve th a t all th e resources o f th e la b o ra to ry are re q u ire d in
o rd e r to re c o rd th em . In th e W est, th e archaeologist was slowly dis
tin g u ish e d fro m th e a n tiq u a ry th ro u g h seek in g to reco v er and to
analyse in th e m o st objective fashion th e m aterial traces o f an cien t
tim es. T h e a n tiq u a ry ’s aim was to g a th e r and p resen t u n c o m m o n
39
THE DISCOVERY OF T H E P A S T
o b jects, c h o se n for th e ir in d iv id u al qualities, w h ic h d istin g u ish ed

th e m from c u rre n t objects because th ey sym bolised a lost, invisible
w o rld . C arefully describ ed , m eth o d ically displayed, these objects thus
a c q u ire d n e w p ro p e rtie s w h ic h m ade th e m different, precio u s,
m o v in g , m aterial w itnesses o f tim e ’s physical d ep th . T h e archaeologist
was m o re am b itio u s; he so u g h t (so h e said) n e ith e r e m o tio n , n o r
quality, n o r exem plar. H e was no lo n g e r even in search o f his close or
d istan t an cestors, b u t lo o k e d fo r th e ancestors o f all m a n k in d . H is
en q u iry was n o t restricted to particu lar w orks o r styles; his appetite
Polidoro da for k n o w led g e m ad e every trace w o rth y o f reco rd in g and, if possible,

Caravaggio, The
o f analysis.
Discovery of the Books of
the Sabine King, Numa O u r vision o f th e past has evolved alongside o u r experience o f the
Potnpilius, 1525.T h e
w orld. H ow ever, it w o u ld be quite presum ptuous to believe that we
discovery o f N u m a ’s
grave was o n e o f die are th e only ones to m ake an art o f m em ory. Very different people, in
m ost celebrated th e m ost distant latitudes, w ere conscious, as w e have seen, th at there
archaeological
episodes in th e history had b e e n p eople before them selves. In using th e ir capacity for observa
o f R o m e . A cco rd in g tio n , in exercising th e ir m em ory, in inventing scripts w h ic h th e ir suc
to T itus Livius the
burial was fo u n d in cessors w ould k n o w h o w to decipher, groups o f m en have wittingly,
181 b c . It contained from earliest antiquity, a ttem p ted to read the past, to record the p re
philosophical treatises
com posed by N u m a sent, even to transm it to th e future traces o f th eir activities. In Egypt, in
(seventh c en tu ry b c ). M esopotam ia, in C h in a, w ritin g was the privileged m eans o f an extra
ordinary, silent contact b etw een generations.
40
1 - A NT I Q U E AN D MEDIEVAL SOURCES
EMPIRES AND A R C H A E O L O G Y
CONTINUITY
T h e e v id e n c e o f p a s t e m p ir e s l e g i t i m a t e s th e n e w
N ab o n id u s, conscious o f b ein g the co n tested in h e rito r o f a lo n g tradi

tio n , was u n d o u b ted ly th e m ost resolute o f the ancient antiquaries. O n
a n o th e r tablet, discovered at U r in M eso p o tam ia, he expressed the
n ear-arch aeo lo g ical d im en sio n o f his sense o f the
past:
Because for a very long time the office o f high priestess had
been forgotten
and her characteristic features were nowhere indicated, I
bethought m yself day after day.
The appointed time having arrived, the doors were opened
fo r me;
indeed I set eyes on an ancient stele o f Nebuchadnezzar,
son of N inurta-nadin-sum i, an early king o f the past,
on which was depicted the image o f the high priestess;
moreover, they had listed and deposited in the Egipar
her appurtenances, her clothing, and her jewelry.
I carefully looked into the old clay and wooden tablets
and did exactly as in the olden days.
A stele, her appurtenances, and her household equipment
I fashioned anew, respectively inscribed on it,
and deposited it before m y lord and lady Sin and Ningal.
A t that time Egipar, the holy precinct, wherein the rites o f the high priestess C o p p e r plaque o f the
N eo-A ssyrian period.
used to be carried out,
T his plaque was
was an abandoned place, and had become a heap o f ruins, discovered in a stone
casket c o n taining five
palm trees and orchard fruit were growing in its midst.
o th e r plaques o f
I cut down the trees, removed the rubble o f its ruins, copper, silver o r gold,
I set eyes on the temple and its foundation terrace became visible. placed in the
foundations o f the
Inside it I set eyes on inscriptions o f old earlier kings, tow n of l)u r
I also set eyes on an old inscription o f E n-ane-du, high priestess o f Ur, S harrukin. built by
Sargon II ofA ssvria
daughter o f K udur-M abuk, sister o f R im -S in , king o f Ur, (706 b c ) . In the text
who renovated Egipar and restored it . . . 1 the k in g relates the
circum stances of the
tow n's con stru ctio n
N a b o n id u s was n o t o n ly c u rio u s a b o u t the m o re an cien t past; he
and the splendour ot
was n o t satisfied in this d e d icatio n sim ply to take his place w ith in a its m onum ents.
41
Kuihtrru, o r deed o f a lo n g line o f royal predecessors; he drew on his kn o w led g e and th at o f

g ra n t o f B abylonian
his scribes to restore a fo rg o tte n cult. In this sense archaeology, as is
land, from the earlv
eleventh c en tu ry bc :, excellen tly suggested by B orges, was a necessary and effective p rac
b ro u g h t back from tice, a science o f th e sacred w h ic h gave th e k in g as m u c h po w er over
B aghdad in 1786 by
the botanist A ndre th e p resen t as th e future.
M ichau x in th e guise In C h in ese tra d itio n , as in th e M eso p o tam ian , th e ex am in a tio n o f
o f a d o w ry for his
daugh ter.T h is k in d o f
th e earth an d d ig g in g w ere th e m eans o f establishing a calm rela tio n
o bject was b o th a ship b e tw e e n past an d p resen t. B u t th e in te re st o f dig n itaries and
ju rid icia l in stru m e n t
kings was n o t ju s t cultural. O fte n it was th e search for treasure w h ich
and an iconographic
narrative. led th e m on:
K ing C hu o f Guangchuan loved to surround h im self with wastrels, sport-
th them and hunting energetically w ith nets and arrows. H e had
the tombs in his kingdom opened. O n e o f m y frien d s by the
nne o f Yuan M eng remembers that his grandfather, who was
vm m ander o f the capital in the service o f the king, had repeat
edly warned him not to do this, but he did not w ant to stop.2
W e shall see later h o w organised lo o tin g was also an
art o f c o llectin g w h ic h presu p p o sed a kn o w led g e and
in te rp re ta tio n o f the objects fo u n d . B u t these exam
ples suffice to show th a t o b serv atio n o f th e ruins and
|, th e analysis o f th e rem ains o f an tiq u ity played a n o t
'| in c o n sid e ra b le role in th e great k in g d o m s o f the
I East. F o r th e A sian sovereigns m astery o f the present
in d ic a te d to a c e rta in d e g re e th e m a ste ry o f th e
J**SB9
p ast. T h e an n als o f th e a n c ie n t ru le rs allo w e d
th o s e o f th e p re se n t to w in le g itim a c y a n d re c o g
n itio n , to realise th e sam e re in v e n tio n o f cults o r
VflT-l ritu a ls w h ic h h e lp e d to establish th e th ro n e , to
m ag n ify th e ir g ra n d e u r an d to m ake visible th e
invisible aspect o f pow er. F ro m this th e role o f th e
vario u s in scrip tio n s w h ic h , placed in tem p le o r palace
fo u n d a tio n s , o r set o n th e ir w alls, m ad e p o ssib le th e
n e c e ssa ry c o m m u n ic a tio n b e tw e e n th e p e o p le o f th e past and
th o se o f th e p resen t. F or th e actual ad m in istrato rs, th e scribes and
archivists, w ere also th e o n ly ones w h o c o u ld read and w rite th e
messages sent by th e kings to th e ir distant successors. Like g o v ern
m e n t o r ad m in istratio n , h isto ry co u ld o n ly b e p ractised by th e k in g
o r his d e p e n d a n ts , a n d th is e sse n tia lly d y n a stic h is to ry a ssu m ed
a p e rfe c t k n o w le d g e and m astery o f sacred areas: tem p les, royal
palaces, to m b s. ‘O rie n ta l d esp o tism ’ also c o n tro lle d burial. All o f these
42
I - A NT I Q U E AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
m o n u m e n ts w ere naturally sym bolic. Also th e scribes, royal architects

an d o th e r fu n ctio n aries had, to som e e x te n t, to act as antiquaries able
to identify, date and in te rp re t th e an c ie n t m o n u m e n ts w h ic h c o n
te m p o ra ry needs fo u n d useful o r in som e cases indispensable. H o w
ever, h isto ry does n o t ju s t re q u ire c o m p e te n c e (w h ich was n o t
lack in g in th e scribes) b u t also a certain freed o m for co llectio n , c o m
p ariso n an d criticism . T h is did n o t len d itse lf well to dynastic eulogy.
T h ro u g h o u t th e sixth c e n tu ry BC, w h e n th e first travellers from the
G reek cities discovered th e sp len d o u r an d a n tiq u ity o f th e great east
e rn civilisations —those o f th e E gyptians, Assyrians an d th e Persians —
th ey w ere all as m u c h im pressed by th e g ran d e u r o f
th e palaces and th e p o w e r o f th e m o n arch s as by the
k n o w led g e o f th e scribes.
THE INVENTION OF HISTORY
H e ro d o tu s
T h e discovery o f w h a t th e g reat h isto ria n A rn ald o

j * n*.- c )y r J ± J yu*. “Z y-v —
M o m ig lia n o called ‘alien w isd o m ’ was critical to the
x __^ tu t//* -- / £-» - . st I,
d e v e lo p m e n t o f G re e k civilisation. W h ilst aw are o f .L At**, fr/t
in ■ So*
th e ir o rig in ality an d th e ir singular status as citizens o f
/ i Hyj,
tiny city-states o f u n c e rta in o rig in , w h e n faced w ith ^ XV'6t.
th e w e a lth an d a n tiq u ity o f th e g reat em pires th e /., J-CU* .
G reeks rapidly discovered th a t th e ir freed o m o f trade ■ A.
was also th e freed o m to th in k , en q u ire and question: .....
These are the researches o f H erodotus o f Halicarnassus, which he p u b L etter from M ichaux
addressed to m em bers
lishes, in the hope o f thereby preserving fro m decay the remembrance o f what
o f the Institute and
m en have done, and o f preventing the great and wonderful actions o f the curators o f the cabinet
o f antiquities, w ritten
Greeks and the Barbarians from losing their due meed o f glory ...3
in 1800. In this letter
T h is fo u n d a tio n te x t fo r W e ste rn h isto ry was also th e first to M ichaux announces
declare a n e w w ay o f lo o k in g at th e past. T his was a past n o lo n g er the g o v e rn m e n t’s
in te n tio n to purchase
th e p ro p e rty o f a d ynasty o r even o f an e th n ic group, b u t th e his discovery: a pebble
c o m m o n h eritag e o f h u m a n ity — G reeks and barbarians — a history covered w ith
inscriptions, dating
to be studied, n o t for w h a t it revealed a b o u t the su p e rio rity o f som e to the eleventh
over o th ers, b u t becau se it re c o rd e d th e ‘g reat and m a rv e llo u s’ c en tu rv b c .
achievem ents o f all m a n k in d . H e ro d o tu s did n o t c o m m e m o ra te on

sto n e o r m u d -b ric k th e story o f ‘a c o n q u est o r a victory; he presented
th e results o f an e n q u iry (historia ) an d this created a n e w genre o f
w ritin g , w h ic h was n o t to be con fu sed w ith the dedicatory, annalistic
43
T H E D I S C O V E R Y OF T H E EAST
o r fo u n d a tio n in scrip tio ns, b u t w h ic h from th e n on to o k th e nam e

history. It was a setting o u t o f w h a t was in te n d e d to be a balanced
overview . U p u n til th at p o in t m e m o ry had b e e n th e privilege o f the
royal co u rts and, w ith o u t d o u b t to a significant degree, o f the priests,
s to ry -te lle rs an d m instrels. B u t fro m th e n o n m e n ’s c u rio sity was
o p e n e d to a n e w m e th o d o f disco v erin g and tellin g th e past.
In scrib ed o n stone, m u d -b ric k , ivory o r w o o d , th e in sc rip tio n spoke
f o r its e lf a n d im p o s e d its e lf o n all th o s e ab le to re a d it; th e
s c rib e effaced h im se lf from th e system , from th e event w h ic h had
e n g en d ered th e text. T h u s it retain ed its leg itim acy by speaking for
itself. By contrast, H e ro d o tu s offered his reader a tex t
w h ic h claim ed its au th o rsh ip , a w r itte n discourse
(iapodexis) w h ic h was th e result o f his o w n w o rk , o f his
research: here was th e lever to tra n sfo rm th e a rt o f
m e m o ry in to history. N a m in g him self, speaking in his
o w n voice, n o t th a t o f a past k in g o r a legendary hero,
b u t th a t o f a m an o f T h u r ii (an A th e n ia n c o lo n y in
s o u th e rn Italy), he in v ited th e rea d er to ex am in e a
sto ry b o r n of re fle ctio n and ex p e rie n c e. H e ro d o tu s
was n o b e tte r in fo rm e d th an th e scribes o f N ab o n id u s
an d tells us h im self th a t he k n ew less th a n those o f the
P h arao h , b u t h e had o th e r curiosities and custom s to
relate and, above all, to investigate. A t th e en d o f th e
day th ere are only tw o ways o f co llecting in fo rm atio n ,
by eye and by ear. H e ro d o tu s set o u t to see all th at he
B ust o f H ero d o tu s co u ld o f custom s, practices and peoples, and w h e n ev e r th at proved
(4 8 4 -4 2 5 b c ) . In
im possible h e m ad e every effort to u n d e rsta n d w h at o th e r persons
pro p o sin g an ‘e n q u iry ’
in to th e past, had h eard b efore him .
H ero d o tu s invented
F o r c e n tu rie s scholars have investigated H e ro d o tu s ’ m e th o d s by
history.
c o m p a rin g th em w ith those o f his successors, especially the greatest
o f these, T h u c y d id e s, and in re c o n c ilin g these w ith th o se o f th e
explorers and eth n o g ra p h e rs o f the six teen th c e n tu ry in th e ir discov
eries b ey o n d E u ro p e. B u t H e ro d o tu s’ w o rk , in a p articu lar way, resists
all o f these classifications. H e ro d o tu s was n o t as p re o c c u p ie d w ith
m e th o d as T h u cy d id es, and h e did n o t have P olybius’ taste for real
ism. In a previously u n attested leap o f cu riosity he makes us p e n e
trate places an d societies b o th ex o tic and fam iliar to th e c u rio u s
G reek travellers o f th e sixth and fifth cen tu ries BC. Perhaps he is dif
ficult to classify precisely because he gave free rein to his desire to see
and to hear, to d escribe and to w rite. W h a te v er it was, his successors,
44
I - ANTIQUE AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
an d fo rem o st a m o n g th e m T h u cy d id es, co uld n o t w h o lly free th e m

selves from th e tra d itio n o f a m an w h o established a n ew and o rig i
nal pathw ay fo r th e art o f m em ory, o n e w h ic h linked th e ex p e rie n ce
o f th e past to th e p resen t — w h a t w e w o u ld today call e th n o h isto ry
an d geohistory.
As h ere d efined, h isto ry so u g h t m e th o d and discipline; u n d e r the
in flu en ce of th e p h ilo so p h ers it had to be explanatory. T h e founder,
H e ro d o tu s , ap p eared to b e above th e fray, n e ith e r th e p ro p h e t o f
w ritin g n o r th e flatterer o f orality, hardly e n c u m b e re d by ex p lanatory
categories b u t happily m ix in g all th e descriptive disciplines.
M o d e rn historians have w ish ed to see H e ro d o tu s as th e p recu rso r
o f o u r R en aissan ce g eo g rap h ers and ex plorers. B u t H e ro d o tu s was
n o M arco Polo o r Je a n de Lery. H e n ev er lea rn t E gyptian o r A ra
m aic, as his successors le a rn t M o n g o lia n o r T u p i-G u a ran i, because,
w h ilst th e G reeks w ere c u rio u s a b o u t ‘alien w isd o m ’, th ey saw no
reason to learn th e languages o f th e an c ie n t east. D id th ey n o t w rite
as G reeks, fo r G reeks? A n d is n o t th e o n ly barb arian b o o k ever c o m
pletely translated in to G reek th e Bible, at the en d o f th e second ce n
tu ry bc? T h e G reeks v isitin g th e g reat k in g d o m s o f th e east w ere
c e rta in ly co n scio u s o f th e ir o w n o rig in a lity b u t did n o t perceive
them selves as carriers o f a s u p e rio r civilisation. O r at least th e ir supe
r io rity was in n o w ay felt as tech n ical: in m atters o f a rch itec tu re,
astro n o m y an d m e d ic in e th e G reeks w ere fascinated by w h a t th ey
fo u n d in th e east. T h e aim o f th e ir e th n o g ra p h ic and h isto rical
c u rio sity was m o re co m p arativ e th a n speculative. T h e B arbarians
allow ed th e m to th in k a b o u t differences, to relativise th e singularity
o f th e h u n d re d o r so m icro -states from w h ic h th ey cam e by ob serv
in g w h a t separated th e m from th e peoples w h ic h su rro u n d e d them .
OBSERVATION OF THE RUINS
P a u s a n ia s a n d T h u c y d id e s
T h e G reeks did n o t have (or as som e a m o n g th e m said, n o lo n g er

had) m o n arch s capable o f b u ild in g g ig an tic cities. T h e y h ad no
k n o w led g e like th a t o f th e o rie n ta l scribes ad ep t at preserving and
exalting th e m e m o rie s o f th e ir m onarchs. B u t like us, th ey k n ew ho w
to lo o k at th e co u n try sid e an d read th e traces o f past hum anity. It
was e n o u g h to o p e n H o m e r an d to see a tableau, som etim es w ith
n ostalg ia, an im a g in a ry w o rld w h ic h , for th e A rchaic G reeks and
45
th e ir successors, seem ed as distan t as th a t o f C h a rle m a g n e in T he

Song o f R oland seem s to us. In th e first c e n tu ry AD Pausanias, visiting
T iry n s and M ycenae, d id n o t fail to muse:
S till, there are parts o f the ring-wall left, including the gate w ith lions
standing on it. T h e y say this is the work o f K yklopes, who built the wall o f
T iryns for Proitos. In the ruins o f M ycenae is a water-source called Perseia,
and the underground chambers o f A treu s and his sons where they kep t the
treasure-houses of their wealth. There is the grave o f A tre u s and the graves
o f those who came hom e from Troy, to be cut down by A ig isth o s at his
supper-party .4
Pausanias was n o t a h isto ria n b u t, as w e shall see, th e p rin c e o f
antiquaries. H ow ever, he was in trig u ed
by th e ex c e p tio n a l a rc h ite c tu re of
these tw o sites and so h e trie d to
in te rp re t th e m by establishing a
ch ro n o lo g y w h ic h was co m p a tib le
w ith the archaic m ythical history. This
p e rsiste n ce d istin g u ish e d h im from
th e M e so p o ta m ia n and E g y p tian
scribes by its effo rt to interpret, the
desire to p u t at a distance and to
explain. H e did n o t seek to establish
c o n tin u ity at all costs, b u t o n th e c o n
trary to m ake clear th e reasons fo r a
p e rc e p tib le ru p tu re , co m p arab le to
T h e Lion G ate at th a t b e tw e e n w h a t w e n o w call th e rem ains o f th e M y cen aean
M vcenae. In th e fifth
p e rio d w ith A rchaic and Classical G reece. A rch ite ctu re was n o t the
c en tu ry b c all th at was
left of M y cen ae w ere only trace o f th e G reek past w h ic h p ro m p te d his enquiries:
a few m o n u m en ts,
A s fo r the weapons in the heroic age being all made o f bronze, I could
inclu d in g th e fam ous
Lion Gate. T hese ruins argue that from Homer, from the lines about Peisander’s axe and M eriones’
w ere th e subject of
arrow; the opinion I have given can be proved anyw ay from the spear o f
several descriptions by
T h u cydides, Pausanias Achilles, which is dedicated in the sanctuary o f A th e n e at Phaselis, and
and others.
M e m n o n ’s sword in the temple o fA sklep io s at N ikom edia: the blade and the
butt o f the spear and the whole o f the sword are made o f bronze.5
To en q u ire : Pausanias was o n th e lo o k o u t fo r any in fo rm a tio n
w h ic h w o u ld m ake his guide intelligible, and his historia rested on
tra d itio n — w o rd o f m o u th - b u t also o n sight. T h e arm s o f H o m e r’s
heroes co u ld still be seen in the tem p le treasuries; in verifying m e th
ods o f ex e c u tio n and m aterials it was possible to verify the trad itio n .
It m akes little difference th at Pausanias gives us no in fo rm a tio n on
46
I - A NT I Q U E AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
1J 1KT>05 PR I M V S 'tIR U P M f R I C lW C tV T IN A T JO N l* -
n n r M M V 5 p r e c e s c h j CYs x e t e s j t m f x f r c i t v
OPIVM R IO VM •
CviSyvK:,
*• *v‘‘,,l.s *. »1'
tod >.\ CuJ *•■'iv : /-•!■• ,
C
1
i/
Ito u u y ewroiciYr'âyiix~H'j\a t.■s'i :.t
o/iccp,fi<ri-»r-rrn.ii £'!«<?>
"V'‘■'V"^-’\ ;VI'% >3YrT 1*V>a'.'< (lul

■nt'Tt’t r • 9XU/tt>; ■•-\K( ■
*euSY#< uj*c •only , L •u rn * A touii fiitus ilU enim r«g inuu*
you>ny a y a jq f nnoy nipa\ k ojt tty . o \ i K jy •;* , M orhim j’ff'fyteninetn commctitr nuhnn ■tftnbmrMUttnyo^tiU
c ’sy tn a j'jo yy-p ijs-vy K'liMxor-ap «*r«y»ic-. ^ (J_iii.i (hryjtv Jertonontiur tctniomn
ecrryJf iXwc -^bratfM ^Jt $otts yiiax a j^tu <^:i, ^ ^ A ZriAts tile c7Hrr. ticnic ueltxes ad ndiies jchuwi^-
^ u tr v 'tu y o c T l h’u rasrpai o rm e titri «.-nra ty . TV. eianj-turuf^. jilutrr. ferens um um m lnlum m em
C orvnawy Zenens inm w .im t Stt^Tiirr^ afvttinis
vKh~rrrjm; Kcu\î^r<if-}-rh^f -rat ^yycuoo.' . K nrfc in tax>rr> SCrcftlxr omnts tu lw w
o rj^r'i iW. 2 .u u %oc jjlm noj> (_\acSil— -O k trtiij* tin t wMptiw< Jurs vttcei t'oyulcv^
arrjtifrtuTXKax~b^n lunya afûui A Crid't'j; &■dlij Ixilt ccreitti ttehiui '
iiMiyMuy 91oi S’tTity ofUM.-an o^&êtiMr i j f y ■t€~:r, V c itt tjudtin pii uaium Jent oiyrryuu i w i cAenttt
( k 7 t? o to « aJtxoto -m ^xy. A oi k « A i*k f c-5 ru ■ X ■xt’iif/i.irt'fnuini iirbvnbtn* uerv Aomumrttlin'
•w o t aVoVjAo.^t_uVc- 'ntf> y.»y ■-tw i( '^ T iluii! .main j>uhi fAiure aniir. -numtju tun> <ictsjrfctt'
d ?i'jxtyo i fs'o c tio/- f K* ,t,o \o y •vrroA\‘*ytu "V n fiirtf 10111; (ilium Sctga-irmm dpptStnem
\ ITT liMJ<<r^y ‘ T unt .</<; iHiiiJrm <*wm«datntuierHnt .u l-m
M iniatures illustrating H o m e rs Iliad in a m anuscript o f 1477.

H o m e ric epic was th e source o f all G re e k th in k in g o n the
a n tiq u e trad itio n . T h ese m iniatures, by a n o rth e rn Italian master,
illustrate th e G reek tex t and th e Latin translation. H ere, C hryses
confronts A g am em n o n and A pollo avenges his priest by-
sen d in g th e plague to th e G reeks. G reeks and Trojans w ear
a n tiq u e arm o u r.
47
T HH D I S C O V E R Y OF I H E PAST
h o w th e tem ples co u ld have co llected such w eapons, th e im p o rta n t

th in g is th a t he established a c o n n e c tio n b etw een tra d itio n and m a te
rial objects.
O f c o u rse in term s o f G ree k h isto ry Pausanias is a late a u th o r,
w ritin g at a p o in t in tim e w h en a passion for antiquities had b eco m e
fashionable, b u t w e can easily fin d in a h isto ria n as c o n c ep tu al as
T h u cy d id es at th e e n d o f th e fifth c e n tu ry bc w h a t m ust be consid
ered an archaeological analysis o f th e past. T h e ruins o f M ycen ae sug
gested to him th o u g h ts q u ite different to those o f Pausanias. H o w
co u ld a fifth -c e n tu ry v isitor accept th at this place had been , at the
tim e o f th e T rojan War, th e capital o f the G reek w orld?
M ycenae certainly was a small place, and m any o f the towns o f that period
do not seem to us today to be particularly imposing; yet that is not good evi
dence for rejecting w hat the poets and ivhat. general tradition have to say
about the size o f the expedition. Suppose, for example, that the city o f Sparta
were to become deserted and that only the temples and foundations o f build
ings remained, I think that future generations would, as time passed, fin d it
very difficult to believe that the place had really been as powerful as it was
represented to be. Yet the Spartans occupy two-fifths of the Peloponnese and
stand at the head not only o f the whole Peloponnese itself but also o f num er
ous allies beyond its frontiers. Since, however, the city is not regularly planned
and contains no temples or m onum ents o f great magnificence, but is sim ply a
collection o f villages, in the ancient H ellenic way, its appearance would not
48
I - AN T IQ U E AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
comc up to expectation. I f on the other hand, the same thing were to happen
to A thens, one would conjecture from w hat m et the eye that the city had been
twice as powerful as in fact it is.
We have no right, therefore, to judge cities by their appearances rather than
by their actual power, and there is no reason w hy we should not believe that
the Trojan expedition was the greatest that had ever taken place. It is equally
true that it was not on the scale o f w hat is done in modern warfare. It is
questionable whether we can have complete confidence in H o m er’s figures,
which, since he was a poet, were probably exaggerated. E ven i f we accept
them, however, it appears that A g a m em n o n ’s force was smaller than forces are
nowadays .6
T h is lesson in h isto ric a l an d arch aeo lo g ical m e th o d o lo g y c o n
tinues to be th e basis o f histo rical practice. As T h u cy d id es was n o t
c o n te n t sim ply to e n q u ire , h e c o m
p ared sources, o n e w ith a n o th e r, and
established levels o f sim ilarity w h ic h
m ade possible a critiq u e.
E v e n i f m o d e rn arch aeo lo g y is dis
m ayed by a less th a n precise c h ro n o l
ogy, in n o v a tio n is th e im p o rta n t th in g
h ere. O f c o u rse T h u c y d id e s ’ c o n te m
p o ra rie s c o u ld visit M y cen ae, Sparta
and A thens and see th e im p act o n the
co u n try sid e and th e tow nscapes o f the
d ifferen t sites. B u t seein g was not
e n o u g h , a n d ju s t as th e p o e t freely
em bellishes his tale, o n e city can take b e tte r care o f its m o n u m e n ta l A view o f A thens,
su rro u n d in g s than an o th er. T h e o b serv atio n w h ic h follow s from the

op sis is a given w h ic h m ust be subject to reason: th e p ow er o f a tow n
is n o t d irectly lin k ed to its visible m o n u m en ts. To th e eyes o f a fifth-
c e n tu ry G reek, M y cenae seem ed o n ly a sm all a b an d o n ed village, b u t
th e h isto ria n ’s eye co u ld already see w h a t w o u ld b e co m e o f p ro u d
Sparta in a few centuries: a little heap o f ruins. As T h u c y d id es’ analysis
is a co n stan t dialectic b e tw e e n past, p resen t and future, it is a tru e
exercise in h isto rical m e th o d , revealing in its first fo rm th e elem ents
o f critical h isto ry initially suggested by H e ro d o tu s.
B u t th e p aradox is even m o re provocative. In G reece itself, in the
last te n years, a certain n u m b e r o f archaeologists have trie d to c o m
p lete, in d e e d to replace, th e classic practice o f archaeology (excava
tio n an d d e sc rip tio n o f m o n u m e n ts) w ith so p h istic ated surveys
49
T H E D I S C O V E R Y OF T H E PAST
capable o f revealing w h a t th e present landscape hides: m o n u m e n ts, o f

course, b u t also agrarian b uildings and c o m m u n ic a tio n routes ... in
sh o rt, an archaeology w h ic h is n o t c o n te n t w ith th e opsis b u t w ith
th e dynam is in scrib ed in th e soil o f th e a n cie n t countryside. F rom the
m o m e n t w h e n histo rical narrative freed itself fro m the rig id fram e o f
th e annals an d royal p ro paganda, the way was o p e n for th e critiq u e o f
sources, an d this is w h a t T h u cy d id es revealed in m agisterial fashion. If
h e u n d e rto o k th e w ritin g o f th e h isto ry o f th e P elo p o n n esian War, it
was because he w itn essed it fro m th e start. C o n te m p o ra ry history,
and thus a h isto ry o f events — b u t this
p a rtic u la r history, precisely because it
aim e d at th e tru th , had to create th e
, . in stru m e n ts o f its ow n v alidation.
t I. T h e re is a qualitative difference
■ m -W w m y I b etw een m o d e rn and an cie n t history:
'■ v/ I’ 1
•I >o / r.f(op■;■
For though I have fo u n d it impossible,
because o f its remoteness in time, to acquire
a really precise know ledge o f the distant
■ Wr-Sfcfycf r$fr(«£:u 5 wvvS^S p a st or even o f the history preceding our
assgbv
' c .
own period, yet, after looking back into it
T h e laws o f G o rty n , as fa r as I can, all the evidence leads me to conclude that these periods were
inscriptions engraved
not great periods either in warfare or in anything else.7
in D o ric d ialect on
stone slabs at G o rty n , W h e re d irect e n q u iry is n o t possible, it is necessary to in vent the
C re te , in 450 b c .
m eans to verify th e oldest traditions an d to com pare th e c h ro n o lo g i
T hese laws are o n e o f
th e m ost o u tstan d in g cal elem en ts. T h is o b se rv a tio n o f facts lin k ed to c ritiq u e allow ed
exam ples o f epigraphy
T h u cy d id es to w rite th e m o st synthesising and best in fo rm e d o f the
from antiquity. In th e
first c e n tu ry b c these G reek histories. A n d th e c o m m en ta to rs w ere n o t w ro n g w h e n they
slabs w ere reused to
called this p art o f th e b ooks o fT h u c y d id e s ‘arch aeology’, n o t in o u r
a d o rn th e w all o f a
theatre. sense o f th e w o rd b u t in th e p ro p e r G reek sense: th e study o f an c ien t
th in g s. T h e n o v elty applies as m u c h to th e quality o f analysis —
T h u c y d id e s gives us in several pages a critical h isto ry o f G reece
befo re th e P elo p o n n esian W ar — as to th e quality o f m e th o d directed
at a global ex p lan atio n based on indicators w h ic h c o u ld be exam ined
an d verified. T h a t this fo rm o f archaeology co u ld in te rse ct w ith w h a t
w e n o w call arch aeo lo g y is easily sh o w n , an d th e fam o u s passage
a b o u t th e p u rific a tio n at D elos provides an excellen t ex am p le.8 In
this sense, k n o w led g e o f th e past — archaiologia in th e G reek m ea n in g
o f th e te rm —is v ery close to th a t specialised b ra n ch o f histo ry w h ic h
fo r th e last tw o c en tu ries w e have called archaeology. It is tru e th at
fo r th e G reeks th e research and in te rp re ta tio n o f an cien t rem ains did
50
n o t c o n stitu te an a u to n o m o u s discipline (as w e shall see, th ey had

m any o th e r things to do to classify th e c o m p lex w eb o f in fo rm a tio n
available o n past m an k in d ), b u t in try in g w ith th e rig o u r o f a logician
to p u t o rd e r in to trad itio n , T h u cy d id es cam e very close to w h a t we
regard as th e m o d e rn science o f archaeology: seeing visible traces in
th e g ro u n d , relating these to tra d itio n , a tte m p tin g a m aterial, stylistic
and fu n ctio n al analysis.9 T h is was a su rp risin g and fleeting advance in
th o u g h t, th e m o d e rn ity o f w h ic h was n o t e v id e n t u n til th e n in e
te e n th century. T h u cy d id es, clearly, w'as n e ith e r th e first n o r th e last
to be in terested in th e m aterial rem ains o f th e past. T h e G reek taste
fo r m ythology, a m y th o lo g y in c a rn a te in ce rta in places an d la n d
scapes, led th e m to observe and a c c o u n t fo r the rem ains w h ic h th e ir
cu rio sity and p ersistence b ro u g h t to light. Just as th e o rie n tal m o n
archs a ffirm ed th e sp le n d o u r o f th e ir lin eag e in red isc o v e rin g th e
palaces and to m b s o f th e ir forebears, th e G reeks o f th e cities sought
to find and h o n o u r th e graves o f fabled heroes o f th e past.
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE SACRED:

THE CULT OF RELICS
P l u t a r c h a n d th e tr a n s fe r o f th e b o n e s o f T h e s e u s
A fter th e P ersian W ars, P lu tarch tells us, th e P y th ia co m m a n d e d the

A thenians to retriev e th e b o n es o f T heseu s from th e island o f Syros
w h ere, acco rd in g to tra d itio n , they had b e en b u ried:
B u t it was very difficult to recover these relics, or so much as to fin d out the
place where they lay, on account o f the inhospitable and savage temper of the
barbarous people that inhabited the island. Nevertheless, afterwards, when
C im on took the island [ ...] , and had a great ambition to fin d out the place
where Theseus was buried, he, by chance, spied an eagle upon a rising ground
pecking with her beak and tearing up the earth with her talons, when on the
sudden it came into his m ind, as it were by some divine inspiration, to dig
there, and search for the bones o f Theseus. There were found in that place a
coffin o f a m an o f more than ordinary size, and a brazen spear-head, and a
sword lying by it, all which he took aboard his galley and brought with him
to A thens. U pon which the A thenians, greatly delighted, ivent out to meet
and receive the relics with splendid processions and sacrifices, as i f it were T h e
seus h im self returning alive to the city.10
F o r this h ero cult to be effective, it h a d to be based o n som e m in i
m al reality. T h e search for th e b o n es o f heroes was thus a cultural and
51
p o litic a l exercise w h ic h d rew o n c o m p le m e n ta ry k n o w led g e: the

capacity fo r o b se rv a tio n an d piety, b u t also actio n . C im o n h a d to
in te rp re t th e oracle and observe th e landscape and anim al behaviour,
an d this k n o w le d g e in sp ired by th e gods allow ed h im to b rin g to
light th e h e ro ’s grave. T h e id en tificatio n did n o t allow for discussion:
th e p reced in g signs an d th e size o f the b o d y proved th e a u th e n ticity
o f th e discovery. T h e p ro ced u res o f the search and the cult o f relics
T h e p rincely comb o f
E retria. D a tin g from
around 720 b c and
later covered by a
h c ro o n (m o n u m en t o f
a hero cult) in ab o u t
680 b c , it provides
archaeological
evidence o f the
ideological salvage o f
B ronze Age objects
d u rin g the G eo m etric
period. A m o n g the
grave-goods was
fo u n d a b ron ze sceptre
from the M ycencan
period.V isible in th e
p h o to g ra p h is the
stone triangle o f the
heroon.
co n stitu te a so rt o f archaeology o f the holy. M oreover, the rem ains o f

th e h ero w ere a p art o f him , revived by the piety o f the excavator:
th u s th e e a rth k n e w h o w to respond to in terro g atio n , p ro v id ed one
q u e stio n e d it w ith ferv o u r and atten tio n . H e ro d o tu s tells us a story
w h ic h is equally edifying b u t ra th e r m o re belligerent. T h e L acedae
m o n ian s an d th e Tegeans w ere at w ar and th e fo rm e r asked Pythia,
‘H o w do w e defeat th e Tegeans?’ She told th em to b u ry the rem ains
o f O restes, son o f A g am em n o n , o n th e ir land. O n c e again, w h a t w ere
th e y to do? E v ery o n e k n e w w h o O restes was, b u t w h e re was his
tom b? P ythia th e n added:
Level and smooth is the plain where Arcadian Tegea standeth;
There two winds are ever, by strong necessity, blowing,
C ounter-stroke answers stroke, and evil lies upon evil.
There all-teem ing Earth doth harbour the son o jA trides;
Bring thou him to thy city, and then bc Tegea’s master.
52
A fter this reply, the Lacedaemonians were no nearer discovering the burial-
place than before, though they continued to search for it diligently; until at
last a man nam ed Lichas, one o f the Spartans called Agathoergi, found it.
T he Agathoergi are citizens who have ju s t served their tim e among the
knights. T he fiv e eldest o f the knights go out every year, and are bound during
the year after their discharge, to go wherever the State sends them , and
actively em ploy themselves in its service.
Lichas was one o f this body when, partly by good luck, partly by his own
wisdom, he discovered the burial-place. Intercourse between the two States
existing ju s t at this time, he w ent to Tegea, and, happening to enter into the
workshop o f a sm ith, he saw him forging
some iron. A s he stood marvelling at w hat he
beheld, he was observed by the sm ith who,
leaving o ff his work, w ent up to him and
said,
‘Certainly, then, you Spartan stranger, you
would have been wonderfully surprised i f you
had seen w hat I have, since you m ake a
marvel even o f the working in iron. I wanted
to m ake m y se lf a well in this room, and
began to dig it, w hen w hat th in k you? I
came upon a coffin seven cubits long. I had
never believed that m en were taller in the olden times than they are now, so I Plan o f the E re m a
opened the coffin. T he body inside was o f the same length: I measured it, and tomb'
fille d up the hole again.’
Such was the m a n ’s account of what he had seen. The other, on turning the
matter over in his m ind, conjectured that this was the body o f Orestes, o f which
the oracle had spoken. H e guessed so, because he observed that the sm ithy had
two bellows, which he understood to be the two winds, and the hammer and
anvil would do fo r the stroke and the counter-stroke, and the iron that was
being wrought fo r the evil lying upon evil. This he imagined m ight be so
because iron had been discovered to the hurt of man. F ull o f these conjectures,
he sped back to Sparta and laid the whole matter before his countrymen. Soon
after, by a concerted plan, they brought a charge against him , and began a pros
ecution. Lichas betook h im self to Tegea, and on his arrival acquainted the
sm ith with his misfortune, and proposed to rent his room o f him . The sm ith
refused for some time; but at last Lichas persuaded him , and took up his abode
in it. Then he opened the grave, and collecting the bones, returned with them to
Sparta. From henceforth, whenever the Spartans and the Tegeans made trial o f
each other’s skill in arms, the Spartans always had greatly the advantage .11
53
H e re even m o re th a n in th e story o f th e transfer o fT h e s e u s ’ bones,

th e m arvellous, th e sym bolic and the fantastic played a decisive p art
in th e a c c o u n t. T h e discovery o f th e to m b was n o t th e result o f
o b serv atio n b u t th e c o n seq u en ce o f th e in te rp re ta tio n o f an oracle.
W e have n o details o f th e arm s o r c lo th in g o f th e h ero; o n ly his
gigantic size distin g u ish ed his from any o th e r burial. In fact, to locate
th e grave it was n o t necessary to in te rp re t co u n try sid e o r soil b u t to
d e c ip h e r a message. Id en tificatio n was n o t linked to a m aterial sign
b u t to a place o f sym bols w h ic h h a d to be d e c o d e d . Lichas is an
archaeologist o f w ords ra th e r th a n o f th e soil. P lu tarch , like Pausanias,
was m o re attentive th a n H e ro d o tu s to th e discoveries revealed by the
soil, b ecau se th e sp irit o f th e tim es in th e sec o n d c e n tu ry AD
favoured th e co llectio n and in te rp re ta tio n o f antiquities. O n e o f the

w itnesses is asked a b o u t th e discovery by Agesilaus, k in g o f Sparta, o f
th e grave o f A lcm ene, th e m o th e r o f H ercules:
/
, 'j V .1
\
jM z l.
’
x \\
/)
Inscribed Cablet from ‘You come most opportunely and as i f by design,’ said Theocritus. ‘I had
B ronze A ge C rete. It
been desiring to hear w hat objects were fo u n d and w hat was the general
shows an exam ple of
the script k n o w n as appearance o f A lcm en a ’s tomb when it was opened up in your country — that
Linear B, d ecip h ered
is, i f you were present when the remains were removed to Sparta on orders
in 1954 by th e English
archaeologist M ichael received fro m Agesilaus.’
V entris. T hese signs ‘I was not present,’ Pheidolaiis replied; ‘and although I expressed to m y
w ere incom p reh en sib le
to th e G reeks o f the countrymen m y strong indignation and exasperation at the outrage, they left
Classical perio d . me helpless. Be that as it may, in the tomb itself no remains were fo u n d , but
only a stone, together w ith a bronze bracelet o f no great size and two pottery
urns containing earth which had by then, through the passage o f time, become
a petrified and solid mass. Before the tomb, however, lay a bronze tablet with
a long inscription o f such am azing antiquity that nothing could be made o f
it, although it came out clear when the bronze was washed; but the characters
had a peculiar and foreign conformation, greatly resembling that o f E gyptian
writing. Agesilaus accordingly, it was said, dispatched copies to the king, with
the request to subm it them to the priests fo r possible interpretation. B u t about
these matters Sim m ias m ight perhaps have something to tell us, as at that
54
I - A NT I Q U E A ND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
tim e he saw a good deal o f the priests in E gypt in the pursuit o f his p h ilo
sophical inquiries. A t H aliartus the great failure o f crops and encroachment o f
the lake are held to have been no mere accident, but a ju d g em en t on us fo r
having allowed the excavation o f the tomb.’12
P lu ta rc h gives us a d escrip tio n , in ad e q u a te in o u r eyes b u t m u c h
m o re d etailed th an w e m ig h t have h o p e d , o f A lc m e n e ’s grave. A nd it
does n o t take to o m u c h im a g in a tio n fo r to d a y ’s archaeologists to
reco g n ise a M y c e n e a n b u rial. As to th e strange in sc rip tio n , w h ic h
P lu tarch tells us a little later th e E gy p tian priest K o n o u p h is had great
difficulty in read in g (‘fo r th re e days h e collated all sorts o f characters
in th e old b o o k s’), it poses problem s because w e k n o w o f no M y ce
n ean in sc rip tio n in bronze. In any case, it co u ld be w agered th at th e
E g y p tian p rie s t’s translation, w h ic h suggested
to th e G reeks th e creatio n o f a c o m p e titio n in
h o n o u r o f th e M uses, h a d o n ly a te n u o u s
c o n n e c tio n w ith th e text.
T h is passage fro m P lu ta rc h is n o t th e only
o n e to m e n tio n G re e k B ro n ze A ge w ritin g s.
D u r in g th e re ig n o f N e ro an e a rth q u a k e
d estro y ed th e C re ta n site o f K nossos and
lim e -b a rk tablets w e re fo u n d by sh ep h erd s.
T h e specialists at N e r o ’s c o u rt to o k th e m for
P h o e n ic ia n an d tran slated th e m in to G reek.
W e possess a L atin e d itio n b y L. S eptim ius. As
th e E n g lish a rc h a e o lo g ist R o b e r t W ace has
su g g ested , w e c a n n o t b lam e th e scho lars in
N e r o ’s palace fo r n o t hav in g translated a lan
guage th e y d id n o t know . W h a te v e r th e c o n
te n t an d im a g in a ry n a tu re o f th e ir tran slatio n , it gives us valuable Minerva and her
Inventions, from a
in fo rm a tio n o n th e p sy ch o lo g y o f th e past in th e G ra e c o -R o m a n
fifte en th -ce n tu ry
tra d itio n . N o t o n ly w ere M y c e n e a n an d M in o a n stru ctu res p a rt o f m anuscript. M inerva,
goddess o f reason and
th e landscape w h ic h co u ld n o t escape th e n o tic e o f travellers, b u t
intelligence, is
also, in th e c o u rse o f m o re o r less casual excav atio n s, frag m en ts represented as patron
w h ic h w e n o w k n o w to be th e first w ritin g s in th e G ree k w o rld o f th e invention o f the
arts. A t h e r feet figures
w e re so m e tim e s fo u n d . W h e th e r th e y a ttrib u te d th e m to th e can b e seen engaged
P h o e n ic ia n s o r th e E gyptians, th e G reeks k n e w th at these in c o m in w eaving, carding
w ool, m etalw ork and
p reh en sib le in sc rip tio n s w ere q u ite d ifferent fro m th e archaic letters playing the flute.
w h ic h th e y could d e c ip h e r, a n d w h ic h th ey rig h tly tra c e d b ack to
P h o e n ic ia n in v e n tio n — H e ro d o tu s h a d n o tro u b le in read in g th e
‘C a d m e a n ’ in s c rip tio n s (th a t is, fo llo w in g th e G re e k tra d itio n , o f
55
P h o e n ic ia n o rig in ) carv ed o n th re e trip o d s

in th e sa n c tu a ry o f A p o llo at T h e b e s in
B o e o tia .13 T h e in n u m e ra b le referen ces to
a n c ie n t o b jects d e p o site d in san ctu aries are
th e re to re m in d us th a t th e tem p le treasure
c h am b ers w ere also, in a c erta in way, galleries
o f an tiq u ities. T h ese objects — trip o d s, arm s,
statues, c lo th in g - w e re n o t displayed fo r
th e ir a n tiq u ity b u t b eca u se th e y recalled a
p a rtic u la r event, in c id e n t o r individual. Fol
X C iy lv n tt i K I iC TC.t'I t a Of K~ 1NVV.V4 i L
C w ^c.v v 'U n n !. rii.w tctU&t - v jw
lo w in g Pausanias th e e n tire h isto ry o f G reece
■vCCi:.- x ; . ? v j n ta v ii-,\tu > i m Dt N 1 1 M i n g i ; s : passes before th e eyes o f th e visito r w ith o u t a
M \ »V L . v U li i. \ : O S t ll> lN C t : C -U V J tN N TJ
ULlSJVTIV < iM \C ‘M .\L ic i.M O L K % c o n c e rn fo r th e c h ro n o lo g y th a t a c c o m p a
nies it, b u t w ith th e firm desire to tie each
o b je c t to an event, a p e rso n , o r a p a rtic u lar
o b ject. T h is social role o f th e tem ples finds its
T h e C yclops o rig in s in th e tra d itio n o f p re sen tin g gifts, so o fte n fo u n d in H o m e r.
m a n u fa c tu rin g
T h e objects w h ic h th e heroes used — th e arm s o f A chilles m ade by
J u p ite r’s lig h tn in g
bolt. T h e Vatican V irgil H ep h aestu s; th e h e lm e t o f O dysseus w h ic h cam e to h im from his
(end o f the fo u r th /
u n cle, th e m ag ician A uto ly cu s; th e b o w o f P h ilo cte tes w h ic h was a
b e g in n in g o f th e fifth
c entury) is o n e o f th e gift fro m A pollo — all h ad a lo n g h isto ry and th e list o f th e ir ow ners
rare antique was inseparable fro m th e ir in trin sic qualities. In G reece social ran k
m anuscripts o f th e
later E m pire to give us was lin k e d w ith fam e, a fam e w h ic h atta c h e d to each w e a p o n and
im ages from classical each p re c io u s o b je c t. T h e e x c h a n g e o f o b jects was p a rt o f a c o m
epic. H e re th e p o e t
w atches th e C yclops, p le x g ift-ex ch an g e system
m asters o f metallurgy, b e tw e e n h ero es, kings ............. ................................... ...
at w o rk at th e ir forge.
an d n o b les. T h u s th e re
e m e rg e d a g e n e a lo g y o f
M id -six th c en tu ry o b jects ju s t as im p o rta n t
G re e k vase. T h e A ttic as th a t o f m en . F ro m this
painters o f th e A rchaic
p e rio d w ere fo n d o f
g rew th e im p o rta n c e o f
th e th e m e o f th e th e w o rk of sc h o la r-
presen tatio n o f th e
arm s o f Achilles. O n
travellers a n d a n tiq u a rie s
this vase th e elem ents w h o w ere th e rep o sito ry
o f th e w a rrio r’s arm s
and a rm o u r are
of k n o w le d g e of this
carefully illustrated. kin d .
56
I — ANTIQUE AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
THE G R A E C O - R O M A N W O R L D
AND A R C H A E O L O G Y
THE TASTE FOR ART AND THE

TASTE FOR THE ANTIQUE
P a u s a n ia s , P l i n y , T a c itu s a n d th e m i s a d v e n t u r e s
o f a tr e a s u r e -h u n tin g em p ero r
U n lik e th e treasures o f th e heroes, th e tem ple treasuries had a collec

tive function: they displayed objects o f w h ic h th e quality, rarity and,
o ften , a n tiq u ity w ere a source o f w o n d e r to in n u m e ra b le pilgrim s.
S o o n th e objects w ere distinguished n o t only by refined tech n iq u e o r
precious m aterials, b u t by b ein g th e w o rk o f k n o w n artists. C o m p e ti
tion b etw een art and antiquity? Pausanias, before leav
in g th e P arth en o n , advises his readers, ‘H e w h o places
w o rk s o f art b efore antiq u ities, h ere is w h a t can be
seen ’,14 and goes o n to d escrib e th e m asterpieces
w h ic h th e visitor sh o u ld n o t miss. O n c e again Pausa
nias, a G reek a u th o r o f th e R o m a n p erio d , addresses a
public b ro u g h t up o n antiq u e w orks and used to the
sp le n d o u r o f u rb a n settings an d th e arts o f p ain tin g
and sculpture. F rom th e eighth cen tu ry BC the G reek
cities en gaged in fierce rivalry over th e b u ild in g o f
sanctuaries and various m o n u m en ts, th e sp lendour o f
w h ic h was designed to proclaim th e ir excellence. In
e x p e rim e n tin g w ith a political system w h ic h allow ed
each city to create its o w n in stitu tio n s, th e cities at th e sam e tim e B ronze trip o d from
O lym pia, eighth
invented a life-style for th e co m m u n ity in w h ich m o n u m en tal struc
c e n tu ry b c . In the
tures, statuary and paintings played a role as decisive as th at o f m usic G e o m e tric p e rio d
tripods fo rm ed an
and poetry. F rom this cam e th e infinite sequence o f w orks w h ic h w ere
im p o rta n t p art o f the
in te rd e p e n d e n t and evoked m em o ries for artists, visitors and pilgrim s. treasures o f the great
A rtistic c reatio n relied o n these m e m o rie s to justify, com p are and sanctuaries.
foster each inn o v atio n w h ic h sprang from th e sensibility o f each artist.

P lato later c o n d e m n e d that lib erty w h ich , in his eyes, so strongly dis
tin g u ish ed th e G reeks from th e Egyptians. T h e latter, h e said, m ain
tained the same canons over thousands o f years, since it was forbidden
for sculptors, painters and o th e r artists to distance them selves from tra
ditional m odels; th e G reeks by contrast never ceased to innovate, p er
fect and m o d ify th e ir form s o f expression. T his rapidly evolving art
57
T H E D I S C O V E R Y OF THE PAST
dem anded an accompanying knowledge, a form adon ot taste following

recognised and shared criteria, in short the invention o f a history o f
art. W hen, around the second century B C , Greek art opted for a slower
evolution, the role o f art history becam e dom inant and we shall soon
see that politicians, R o m an governors and even the em perors had a
shared devotion to the most renow ned artists and sought, by theft if
needs be, to acquire their works for themselves. T he enorm ous success
o f Pliny’s history o f art and Pausanias’ guidebook cannot otherwise be
explained. In developing a new discipline o f the individual the Greeks
had not only invented history but had created the necessary conditions
for the appearance o f an art market and thus a shared artistic know l
edge. N o t that the eastern courts had been lacking in artistic or histor
ical sensibility, but there art could not be
separated from the royal court, and the
palaces o f the dignitaries had to conform
to this central model.
If the taste for fine objects and collect
ing awoke the aesthetic sense, it also
encouraged looting. After a victory, each
city made it a point o f honour to display
the objects pillaged from the defeated city.
T he R o m an governors moved to elevate
artistic acquisition to the rank o f a new
branch o f art, and C icero has left us a
colourful picture o f the excesses o f Varro.
T he hu n t for treasure was often m ixed
'I
w ith the m ost frenzied cupidity. Tacitus
A eneas at th e tells us w ith delight o f an archaeological adventure by Nero:
c o n stru ctio n o f F ortune soon afterwards m ade a dupe o f N ero through his ow n credulity and
C arthage, a fifth-
c e n tu ry m iniature. the prom ises o f Ccesellius Bassus, a C arthaginian by birth a n d a m an o f a
F or th e illustrator o f crazed im agination, w ho wrested a vision seen in the slum ber o f night into a
theV atican V irg il th e
b u ild in g o f C arth ag e confident expectation. H e sailed to R o m e , a n d having purchased adm ission to
be lo n g e d to th e cycle the emperor, he exp la in ed h o w lie had discovered on his land a cave o f im m ense
o f th e in v en tio n o f th e
arts. T h e im age o f the depth, which contained a vast q u a n tity o f gold, not in the fo r m o f coin, but in
fo u n d a tio n o f a to w n the shapeless a n d ponderous masses o f ancient days. In fa c t, he said, ingots o f
is rare in a n tiq u e art.
H ere, the heroes
great w eight lay there, w ith bars standing near them in another p a rt o f the cave,
A eneas and A chates a treasure hidden fo r so m a n y ages to increase the w ealth o f the present. P h o en i
w atch the
co n stru ctio n o f
cian D ido, as he sought to sh o w by inference, after fle e in g fr o m Tyre a n d fo u n d
th e city. ing C arthage, had concealed these riches [ ...] . N ero upon this, w ith o u t
sufficiently ex a m in in g the credibility o f the author o f the story, or o f the m atter
58
I - A N TIQ U E AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
R o m a n relief from
O stia, dating to the
first c en tu ry b c . O n
the right, fisherm en
draw up a G reek
bronze in th e ir net.
T his re lie f is one o f
the few instances in
a ntique art w h e re an
archaeological object
is clearly portrayed as
such: the statue
‘c au g h t’ by the
fisherm en can be
easily recognised as
a G reek bronze,
probably a H erakles
(H ercules) from the
b e g in n in g o f th e fifth
itself, or sending persons through w hom he m ig h t ascertain w hether the intelli c en tu ry b c . H ercules
h im se lf occupies the
gence was true, h im se lf actually encouraged the report and despatched m en to centre o f the relief,
bring the spoil, as if it were already acquired. T h e y h a d triremes assigned them and the personification
o f the god contrasts
and crews specially selected to prom ote speed. N o th in g else at the tim e was the w ith his statue. H e
subject o f the credulous gossip o f the people, a n d o f the very different conversa offers a tablet taken
from a casket to a
tion o f th in kin g persons. It happened, too, th a t the q u in q u en n ia l gam es were
you n g boy. O n the
being celebrated for the second time, and the orators took from this sam e incident left, a th ird scene
represents the
their ch ie f m aterials f o r eulogies on the emperor. N o t only,’ th ey said, ‘were
consu ltatio n o f the
there the usual harvests, a n d the g o ld of the m ine w ith its alloy, but the earth tablet; the person in
th e toga holds a half
n o w teem ed w ith a n ew abundance, a n d w ealth was thrust on them by the
o p e n diptych, above
bounty of the gods.’ [ ...] B assus indeed dug up his land a n d extensive plains in h im is aV ictorv.
the neighbourhood, w hile he persisted th a t this or th a t was the place o f the
prom ised cave, and was follow ed n o t only by our soldiers b u t by the rustic p o p u
lation w ho were engaged to execute the work, till at last he threw o ff his in fa tu
ation, and expressing w onder th a t his dreams had never before been false, and
that n ow for the fir s t tim e he had been deluded, he escaped disgrace and danger
by a voluntary d e a th .15
A classic image o f the treasure-hunting w hich obsessed an entire
people carried away by the lure o f gain, but also a portrait o f the tyrant
w ho saw the past as a resource capable o f ensuring wealth in the pre
sent. T he vain Eldorado o f a m ad emperor, w'ho w ould not be stopped
out o f respect for antiquity or tradition. If the em peror was a treasure -
hunter, if the w'ell-being o f the empire rested on the discovery o f the
riches o f the past, it was as well that all rules were abolished: we shall
see that the them e o f the avaricious and deluded antiquary is a recur
rent image in the history o f archaeology.
59
ARCHAIOLOGIA AND AN T I QU I TATES

H ip p ia s , V a rro a n d P o ly b iu s
T he observation o f ruins and the collection o f prestigious and exotic

objects was necessary for the G raeco-R om an scholars to understand,
interpret and in a certain way exploit the w orld in w hich they lived.
This curiosity, com bined w ith the developm ent o f w hat H erodotus
had been the first to call ‘history’, w ould lead to the founding o f new
disciplines: archaiologia in Greek, a n tiq u ita tes in Latin.
A rchaiologia: the know ledge o f the past. In a famous passage in
P lato’s H ip p ia s M a jo r, Socrates debates w ith the sophist o f Elis, H ip
pias, w ho is famous throughout the G reek world.
T he reputation and the honours awarded the
scholar w ere no t w ith o u t striking and staggering
rewards. His travels and embassies enabled the
sophist to hold courses and conferences, attracting
an im m ense public w ho rem unerated him for his
efforts. All the cities sought to hire his services,
except Sparta, w here the law forbade foreigners to
teach the young. However, according to Hippias,
the Lacedaemonians were as aware o f the sophist’s
art as the o ther Greeks. In the course o f question
ing by Socrates it rapidly becam e clear that they
w ere only interested in a particular branch o f
m m
know ledge: n eith er astronomy, geom etry, arith
m etic, n o r even the sciences o f language or
B ust o f Varro queenly rhetoric. T he success o f Hippias am ong the Spartans was
(116—27 b c ), one
lim ited to one science and one alone, that w hich dealt w ith ‘the
o f th e figures m ost
revered by the genealogies o f heroes and o f m en ... and the settlem ents (how cities
R enaissance
were founded in ancient times), and in a w ord all ancient history
antiquaries.
[archaiologia]’ .16
T h e austere Spartan teachers categorically refused the sophist’s
lessons, but made an im portant exception for the science o f the past.
Still, this know ledge o f the past was restricted to a very simple form
o f history: lists o f names, o f foundations, o f sequences o f events and
the symbols necessary to legitim ise the present — all this rather than
thought. T he m ost conservative o f G reek cities, w hose efforts, thanks
to the sophistication o f its institutions, were geared towards the abo
lition o f tim e and the m aintaining o f the fiction o f a never-changing,
60
eternal city, this city had m ore need than any other o f the past. A past
w hich was to begin w ith a line o f descent, a dem arcation, a reference
system, b u t w hich could n o t escape m uch greater questions.
Assuredly w hat attracted the crowds was initially the elem ent o f
m y th o s, the fine stories carried in the tales o f ancient times. As
expressed by Socrates, Hippias held for the Spartans the role o f a
g randm other ‘telling stories to children’. B ut behind the stories o f
singular m en there soon arose com plex questions: the history o f the
cities called for m ore com plete accounts, excursus and descriptions,
in b r ie f ,‘everything to do w ith know ledge o f the past’. A rchaiologia,
appearing for the first tim e under these circum stances, was thus a
new word, one o f those technical words dear to the refined language
o f the sophists. This archaiologia was not defined as a special discipline
aim ed at a specific type o f knowledge. It was a convenient innovation
to speak about everything that dealt w ith origins, w ith antiquity as a
period, and w ith antiquities as objects o f knowledge. In this sense,
the term revealed an interest in the past less determ ined by explana
tion (history in H erodotus’ sense, as an enquiry) than by description.
U nfortunately tradition has no t preserved for us the contem porary
works on w hich this archaiologia was based: the treatises on ‘peoples’,
on ‘the names o f peoples’, ‘the origins o f peoples and cities’ and the
‘barbaric custom s’ attrib u ted to H ellanikos (496—411 Be), or the
books by Hippias on neighbouring subjects.
A rnaldo M om igliano has dem onstrated that the em ergence o f two
distinct types o f history can be identified at this tim e (around the
m iddle o f the fifth century b c ) . T he one, developing on its own
account the H erodotean tradition o f analysis, was interested in the
recent past, th at w hich we m ight call contem porary history, and
sought w ith the unequalled mastery o f Thucydides to construct an
explanation o f hum an behaviour, to lay the foundations o f a science
o f politics. O n the other side, Hippias, Hellanikos and many others
were interested in a m ore distant past and in establishing the premises
o f a history o f cities, morals and custom s, directed m ore at their
anatomy, at m inute description, in short, at erudition. T he Greek his
torians anticipated a classic distinction in the practice o f history
w hich M om igliano has sum m arised as follows:
/. In their w ritings, the h isto ria n s stu c k to chronology w h ile the a n ti
quaries foiloived a system a tic p la n ;
2. T h e historians presen ted those fa cts w hich served to illustrate or exp la in
a g iven situ a tio n ; the a n tiq u a ria n s ga th ered all the m aterial relevant to a
61
£iVeM subject, w hether or n o t th ey h a d a problem to solve. T h e subject in h a n d

o n ly helped d istinguish the historians from the antiquaries in so f a r as, tradi
tionally, it was considered th a t certain subjects (for e x a m p le p o litical in s titu
tions, religion, p riva te life) le n t them selves more to a logical p la n than to
chronological trea tm en t .17
T he antiquary is distinguished from the historian in that he col
lects objects or facts, whilst the latter relies on questions w hich ulti
m ately lead him to the objects and facts. This subtle distinction has
not ceased to weigh upon the organisation and developm ent o f the
historical sciences and on m an’s feeling for the past. T he opposition
betw een historians and antiquaries — tacitly posed since its G reek
beginnings — is n o t a difference o f m aterial but o f m ethod. Each
deals w ith hum an affairs w ithout fol
{•tUt.rMr k4*T j
CMV *4»* fJt Tl*f«Mi low ing the same path. M om igliano
' ^*r fiwiWirfw»*’VHfVrmwvlL ■1U.
_________.____ _ ■-.wgW wtyW faW^y«(r'«»t»k+fci>]U considered the appearance o f the
2S*M#""
Ck*. ,*/»M4ntr-Mi*y
-W Atoun-H %\g*pik M*H - .
v.VfHW•K'M®. t Z f ^ r K j p
'W*p’jAf’±y»Jg"f
V*mJL ^ ■*. term archaiologia w ith Plato as the
indication o f an awareness o f these
¥*>**•ww’V«'»**'”*■'5*'■i
* wrhh-m* « K t e f r f S i ■
5
—_
•afigk-'Mfln •«*«« v"1* *
differences, as an attem pt to define
■£*>£*£>»Unr^- ôiiâtf-.iL . archaiologia against historia. B ut he
■'W %*»**nUWî iJ * ^ wri^lUtlK- - AM<
% '>-** W -n •»
Vt'nA#mi*. ■•*>'" rnMtrtt *ds ^ « M n » * ._ :__ . t
*> ■* \ jf a p & v n & x i f '* ’* qualified this statem ent him self in
recalling that this term , w hich had
C*W ,-ttc
i •»*'*“
_<• w*j*»Adt*E4
puS.^’ a
U«,
H* r
•*V>.
iU &d ifC becom e com m on in the H ellenistic

'J.aiMW fi**»«iliW
ri»r£ £,«.*#* ?*6 **'"*
period, had already lost its specificity:
££■ 5
the R o m an archaeology o f Dionysius
o f Halicarnassus and the Jewish
L ectures o n V arro w ith archaelogy o f Flavius Josephus were histories in the first sense o f the
textual notes,
R om ans and the Jews. T he explosion o f historical genres at this tim e
co m p o sed in 1484 by
P o m p o n io Leto, o n e is striking. T h e blossom ing o f works and the diversification o f titles
o f th e m o st fam ous
heralded the arrival o f the age o f specialists in the past, w ho can
R o m a n antiquaries o f
th e fifteenth century. equally be called k ritik o s, p hilologos, p o lyh isto r, g r a m m a tik o s and, in
Latin, doctus, eruditus, litteratus.
W ith the developm ent o f their institutions the cities created sys
tems for archives, publication and com m unication. Soon, m en began
to collect, study and com pare these. T he principles stated by
H erodotus and Thucydides had found in the fertile ground o f the
political practice o f the cities the conditions necessary for their suc
cess. Historians since the Renaissance have searched in the classical
tradition for prolegom ena and keys to their theoretical debates.
W here does ethnography start and history finish? W hat is the b ound
ary betw een chronography and political history, or betw een local and
62
I - AN TIQ U E AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
universal history? These questions were familiar

to the ancient historians, and they brought to
th em a variety o f responses. M om igliano’s
analysis revealed the conquests o f Hellenistic HeR-ODOTILIBEP. PRIMV QitlNSCRIBlTvR 5
T h a l ia d iv o a e n e a e s e n e n s ip io h p o n t ifi
Cl MAXIMO OPTIMOQÊ PEMAVRENTtVM VAL
eru d itio n by em phasising the variety o f LAM R.OMANVMORATOREM EGRECO INIA
T lN V M VSRJVSINCIP1T FE I I C I T E P.___
approaches and the advances in technique. Fol

low ing on from these, the facts were no t con TV.:..
tradictory: if the G raeco -R o m an scholars had
0 lr^ ,,ri •• grrcifnl-.tauri
invented m ost o f the fundam ental know ledge fl'-lvirtjanl glona ftvuxlnu'
dr.rr.tfliiDtrrff brUiâaurotnt Pcrfarmo <yumii
o f the science o f the past —publication, collec tticmor.iiir. rtifrr/ifionifn urtw ( cjcdtiflc I’lrinnT cjiti
,1'nian c|iial rnlinmi uorjlti.r’ inbtv tiollmmprofin
fccntof cr l«uit inniirjirff rajricniMii tiuiir quoti
tion, description, chronological and textual cri inroiunt lrii<;n>i<]iii{ ronnnuoiimiiiîrionibuf mmbn-
d c n n t A n r n K i a n i m ecAffyrinrum ttierti
um u cfiun f in all.if plagafpiwpuci^ Ari^rftraiern a :
tique — they were at the same tim e exploring Argofetenim ca.tvi!ipefhin" om mbaf ciuiratilml'rcgin
nirfluf-nuiirgrfria iimmnatur'.inteecUroae Hncap
pulfofpinncH inCTCHnoma. rjrprtiullr ccijuitito irxtmt
the avenues opened up since the sixth century g aj^>uU(Tcnt Hip cui.iftifftre rimrnrfirif -iVinitiafad
tnatr. iifniffe : cum n liaf mu!taf- cum no
cuinotnm HVcridfm q u a l i/rrci tradim t |o fitiniri-
G eographia by H ecateus o f M iletus. Capable o f I lnarhi Dunicr. h^ffnunr pmpi iwnfallillmtef-es.
observing landscape and earth, they also set out

the limits o f interpretation and descriptive sys
tems w hich m ade possible the establishm ent o f
a cum ulative and ordered knowledge.
U n fo rtu n ately we do no t have H ippias’
A rchaiologia, and we have seen that those o f Dionysius o f Halicarnas M anuscript o f
H ero d o tu s w ith a
sus and Flavius Josephus are in fact Histories. B ut at least we have at
Latin translation by
o ur disposal parts o f a treatise on A n tiq u ita te s by a m an w hom Cicero L orenzo Valla
(1 4 0 7 -5 7 ). O n e o f
tells us was an investigator a n tiq u ita tis. As a collaborator w ith Pom pey
the m ost fam ous
and correspondent w ith Cicero, Varro was a m an o f stature in society philologists o f his
and the scholarly w orld at the end o f the R epublic. For Cicero, Varro time,Valla helped
m ake k n o w n the
was the ‘rediscoverer o f Latin culture’: w o rk o f ancient
In d eed , w h e n w e were so jo u rn in g a n d w a n d erin g lik e fo reig n ers in our authors, notably
H ero d o tu s, w h o
ow n city, yo u r books, I m a y say, escorted us hom e, a n d enabled us at length to enjoyed great
perceive w ho w e were a n d w here w e lived. You have revealed to us the age o f prestige d u rin g the
R enaissance.
our fa th e rla n d , its chronology, the law s o f its religion a n d priesthoods, the p la n
o f our hom e a n d fo re ig n a d m in istra tio n , the p o sitio n o f our territories a n d
districts, the titles a n d descriptions o f all things d ivin e a n d h u m a n , w ith the
duties and principles attaching to th e m .ls
Varro’s inquisitiveness was im m ense and his know ledge limitless.
However, only a few m eagre fragments allow us to discover this mas
sive com pilation. InV arro’s w ork the architecture was as im portant as
its construction, and we can partly reconstitute the project thanks to
an impressive description by Saint Augustine:
Varro w rote fo r ty -o n e books u n d er the title A ntiquities. H e d ivid ed his
m a tter under two headings, h u m a n a n d divine, devoting tw e n ty -fiv e books to
63
THE DISCOVERY OF T H E PAST
the form er a n d sixte en to the latter. H e follow ed the p la n o f devoting s ix

books to each o f fo u r su b d ivisio n s un d er the heading ‘T h in g s H u m a n ’: P er
sons, Places, T im es, a n d A c tio n s — dealing in the first, s ix w ith persons, in the
second s ix w ith places, a n d the third six w ith times, in the fourth a n d last
s ix , w ith actions. T h ese fo u r sixes m a k e tw en ty-fo u r. A t the begin n in g he
placed one book by itself, as a general introduction to the whole. In general, he
follow ed a sim ila r p la n in regard to divine things, as fa r as the subject m atter
allow ed.
Sacred actions are perform ed by persons in certain places at d efinite times.
A n d these are the fo u r topics lie treats, g iv in g three books to each. T h e first
three deal w ith the persons w ho perform the rites, the n e x t three w ith places,
the third w ith times, the fo u r th w ith the rites. H ere, too, he is careful to m a ke
the d istin ctio n s: W h o , W h ere, W h e n a n d W h a t. T h e m a in topic he was
expected to deal w ith w as:T o w h o m . H ence, the last three deal w ith the gods;
the fiv e threes m a k in g fifte e n in all. To m a k e up the total of six te e n w hich I
m en tio n ed , he placed one book by its e lf at the beginning to serve as a general
in tro d u ctio n .19
Varro’s four-part division proposed a systematic and logical fram e
w ork for the description o f ‘m atters hum an and divine’. It established
an order w ithin the universe w hich otherw ise w ould have been
purely enum erative; above all it established a successive relationship
betw een the characteristics o f m en and the characteristics o f deities.
Saint A ugustine was not m istaken in emphasising that Varro addressed
godly m atters after those o f m ankind because he considered that the
latter proceeded from the former. M oreover, it was not the essence o f
divinity w hich Varro studied but the way in w hich the gods were
honoured, celebrated and regarded by m ankind: ‘Varro gives a reason
for treating o f hum an things first and o f divine things later, namely,
because cities came into existence first and only later instituted reli
gious rites.’2"
Varro envisaged a religious sociology w hich, for the bishop o f
H ippo, was sacrilegious because it could lead to the supposition that
the existence o f deities was a hum an creation. Ignoring the true
faith, Varro, w hen dealing w ith the gods, spoke o f the relationship o f
m en to the gods and his theology was as fragile as his know ledge o f
antiquities was secure: ‘In w hat he w rites about hum an matters, he
follows the historians w ho deal w ith facts [historiam rerum gestarum ].
In w hat he w rites about w hat he calls ‘divine’ m atters, w hat does he
do but give us feelings about fancies [opiniones rerum v a n a m m ] T 2i
Saint Augustine set out to destroy Varro’s conclusions; however, his
64
relentless critique is the best hom age to the quality o f the work. T he
antiquary w on that w hich the theologian lost. N o other Latin author
before him had accum ulated so m uch historical evidence and pre
sented it so perfectly. C onfronted w ith a historian’s history,Varro p ro
duced an ordered corpus o f know ledge, the im portance o f w hich
rested n o t only on its proven learning, but also and above all on the
logical — one could alm ost say phenom enological — nature o f its
approach. If social types, places, tim e and things (material and n o n
m aterial) created by hum an societies w ere susceptible to ordered,
progressive and com plete knowledge, then the relationship o f hum an
and divine affairs could claim a rigour similar to that o f the natural
sciences. Varro thus provided the long line o f antiquaries w ith the
elem ents o f a positive know ledge o f past societies. T he description o f
m en, their actions, their institutions and their products was both the
means and the end o f antiquarian studies. T he question o f m ethodol
ogy came n o t before the collection o f data or its cataloguing, but
after. It followed from rigorous observation and the quality o f classi
fication. Here, assuredly, was a way o f looking at the past w hich was
different from the investigations and stories, however authoritative, o f
the historical tradition from Thucydides to Polybius. T he latter
expressed vividly these contrasting ways o f reading the past:
T h e genealogical side appeals to those w ho arc f o n d o f a story, a n d the
account of colonies, the fo u n d a tio n o f cities, a n d their ties o f kin d red , such as
w e fin d , for instance, in E phorus, attracts the curious a n d lovers o f recondite
lore, w hile the stu d en t o f politics is interested in the doings o f nations, cities,
and m onarchs.22
T he type o f history w ith w hich Polybius contrasted his political
conception was exactly that w hich Hippias used to delude the Spar
tans: specific facts over general history, antiquarian history over his
tory in the strict sense. This is the (almost) natural state o f the debate
w hich runs through the ancient history o f the West and whose ter
m inology continues to haunt the com plex relationship betw een
archaeology and history.
65
lLX'(<un/M>jaT(;iiic)t (btiuc n o tilt (Oittvtbtrca(a derc nufott behe
at>j0i(ftvr<fi>l>i i it nrr iiitiifrfbiibnvi/f-iildb.'tHC im fnitc *xU
.nrf/itvSefl fe n tot fbvm faem ic fa U iirpiruv mnnteiibM ipt
mftS/niif Jufifuee <iZ>cc tfncptc hudcbitn
Icleu* l/miMui iic cUcfrtiff-tfanc p>ui»iilcc)uipctninoiK
Iditip p u ra tu fc fcv "tJtfbv it lie fervit),i mefhev tx'lomy fmiun<,
liiHHiintcijui cjlfvai' amtifi<)ui feiitrnt'frjoirtriiiaif'ixU t/v}’
IcctmdliitKfurcoti mtiy>liijuc etifin p»ir fkm U te-fuffifcn^
Scenes from o n e o f th e m o st lu x u rio u sly illustrated m anuscripts (1473) o f T h e C ity o f G od,

th e m a jo r w o rk o f St A ugustine (354—430). C o m p o se d at th e end o f his life, this b o o k is
supposed to b e a response to th e pagans w h o reproached the C hristians fo r forcibly
im p o sin g th e ab an d o n m en t o f polytheism .
O n this page in th e u p p e r fram e St A ugustine responds to the objections presented to him .

B eh in d h im pagans are w o rsh ip p in g idols: th e pagan statues are placed o n colum ns like busts
in a R enaissance villa. Below, a C h ristia n a n nounces to the crow d th e destru ctio n o f
th e ir to w n because o f th e ir sins.
O p p o site above, th e e m p e ro r O ctavius su rro u n d e d by Varro, C ic ero and St A ugustine.

T h e ch o ice o f au th o rs is ev id en ce o f th e interest in th e w o rk o f V arro and his tradition
from th e late E m pire to the R enaissance.
O p p o site below , an exam ple o f stupidity: th e pagans ask B acchus for w ater and
th e nym phs for w in e. O n th e left, th e g o d o f w in e (liber pater), o n the right, goddesses o f w ater;
devils ho v er a b o v e.T h e R o m a n s address th e divinities:
D as nobis aquas: give us w ater
D etis nobis barbas : give us beards (the p h ilosophers’, i.e. w isdom ?)
D etis nobis v in u m : give us w in e
D etis nobis fortitudinem : give us courage.
T h e n ym phs lead th e m e n astray: a m an flounders in a w ell u n d e r the w e ight o f an u p tu rn e d
d o n k e y :‘T h ese w ere devils w h o by n ig h t m o c k e d people and led th e m from the path.’
66
1ST
««*•rif-friit/w/r tr/yMWnA* nr/hif»»p-w«mrrti

cffirjMcpiwnpioiiffit-itblcBouMclix'iiect-
nm iuaifihcableeoucri-treavahinkttiw nrtc
ariitriii %i £ti}inc(tcvllui t/itt u c fic ix ^ u c
m n ittjfiu ire M autireietititC m iifucetpniif
imtbive- n t pcucnt-poiir c rn m n (b u 0 tv citxvf
gnmdcfvlttcu obfhm ao) tjuimtlen attic quc
m ile (fiottr cVbiinin*nr hti m t fttu a dtiaa tea
fiucrs bc'vcntc at Ik niAuuttifhc,1:outcfJioic$
irlliip ct)i]ttt IJrpimtbicra/ctttnourtc. G trrnT
im’cpat'la mmuuufficbii m cctan uuub bu,
maiaic fa mafadic cflfhittv not) attnblcct m
B g
GRAECO-ROMAN PREHISTORY
D io d o r u s S ic u lu s
T h e discovery o f fire, T he a n tiq u ita te s , established in a descriptive discipline by V arro’s

w o o d engraving by
efforts, could no t restrict themselves to the study o f a history im m e
C'esare C esariano,
1521, from his diately preceding that o f the cities. T h e question o f hum an origins
translation w ith
in the G raeco -R o m an tradition was no t just philosophical but also a
co m m e n tary o f
V itruvius' treatise O u subject for history, andV arro did no t fail to echo this:
Architecture , w ritte n in
It is a necessity th a t fr o m the rem otest a n tiq u ity o f h u m a n life th e y have
27 b c . Illustrations for
this b o o k pro v id ed the come d ow n, as D icaearchus teaches, step by step to our age, a n d th a t the
occasion fo r an m o st d ista n t stage w as th a t sta te o f nature in w hich m a n lived on those
iconograph y o f the
discovery o f the arts p ro d u cts w h ich the virgin earth bro u g h t fo rth o f her o w n accord; th e y
w hich th re w o ff descended from this stage into the second, the pastoral, in w hich th e y g a th
m edieval traditions.
T h e reading o f ered fo r th eir use acorns, arb u tu s berries, m ulberries, a n d o th er fru its by
G raeco-R .om an p lu c k in g th em from w ild a n d u n cu ltiv a ted trees a n d bushes, a n d likew ise
■pnmitivists’ was the
source of R enaissance caught, s h u t up, a n d ta m ed such w ild a n im a ls as th e y could for the like
interest in th e origins advantage. T h ere is g o o d reason to suppose tha t, o f these, sheep were fir s t
o f humanity'.
ta ke n , both because th e y are useful a n d because th e y are tractable; f o r these
are n a tu ra lly m o st p lacid and m ost adapted to the life o f m a n . For to his
fo o d th e y brought m ilk a n d cheese, a n d to his body w ool a n d sk in s fo r clo th
ing. T h e n by a third stage m a n came from the pastoral life to th a t o f the tiller
o f the soil; in this th e y retained m uch o f the fo r m e r two stages, a n d after
reaching it th ey iven t far before reaching our sta g e.23
This passage from V arro’s A g r o n o m y faithfully dem onstrates the
three-age th eo ry - the dark age, the age o f m yth, the age o f p o lis — as
initiated by the Greeks. We m ust also look to the G reek authors for
a clarification o f the vision o f hum an origins to w hich Varro
adhered.
In G reek tradition the origin o f hum anity was, above all, a p hilo
sophical question. T hu cy d id es’ distrust o f everything that was not
contem porary history was shared by m ost o f those w ho held to a
political and analytical concept of the historian’s trade. T he history
o f the D ark Ages and even that o f the H eroic Age was thus a field o f
reflection reserved for philosophers, ethnographers and those who,
along w ith M om igliano, we may call the antiquaries. T he G reek tra
d ition — particularly Ionian — was distinguished by the idea, w hich
was affirm ed, argued and developed in various ways, o f constant
hum an progress and a direct relationship betw een technical and
social evolution. Certainly, ever since H esiod, the idea o f progressive
68
69
TH E D I S C O V E R Y OF T H E PAST
hum an decline from an original G olden Age was relatively current,

b u t it em erged from m ythological discourse and it did no t restrain
the developm ent o f concurrent theories on hum an origins. This his
tory o f hum an progress could take many form s, from the th eo ry o f
discovery to the idea o f stages best represented by Dicaearchus. T he
speculative quality o f m ost o f these m odels has lost n o n e o f its
seductive capacity. It is even obvious that the m o d ern three-stage
th eo ry — prehistory, protohistory, history — has its origins in the
G reek three-age m odel. T h e cataclysm theory in the third b o o k o f
P la to ’s L a w s had also influenced num erous considerations o f the
relations betw een hum an history and geological time. T he ‘m o d er
n ity ’ o f prehistory as im agined by G reek thinkers and their R o m an
successors is such that it seems to us to develop into contem porary
theories o f evolution.
T h e paradox lies elsewhere; whilst the philosophers and th eo reti
cians did no t hesitate to deal w ith the question o f hum an and soci
etal origins w ith a surprising inventiveness, political history — but
also ethnography and antiquarianism —profited little from this con
ceptual fram ew ork. Even if the Greeks w ere aware o f the decisive
relationship betw een m en and their environm ent and w ere able to
suggest, as Lucretius later did, the technological succession o f stone,
bronze and iron, w hose enunciation was the keystone o f n in eteen th -
century prehistory, no t a single antiquary, at least in the texts left to
us, u n d erto o k a detailed account o f the dwellings, clothes and tools
o f prehistoric m an. T he opposition betw een theory and practice ran
through G reek science. To be convinced we need only look at the
scenario o f prim itive hum anity set ou t by D iodorus Siculus in B ook
I o f his B ibliotheca historica :
T h e fo reg o in g , th e n , is w h a t w e are told a b o u t th e f i r s t b eg in n in g o f the
u niverse. A s f o r the fir s t-b o r n m e n , it is sa id th e y en d u re d a precarious
a n d s u b h u m a n e x iste n c e . T h e y ro a m ed a b o u t in d iv id u a lly in search o f
fo o d , p lu c k in g th e m o st digestible p la n ts a n d n a tu ra l fr u it s fr o m th e trees.
T h e a tta ck s o f w ild beasts ta u g h t th e m th e a d va n ta g e o f m u tu a l a ssis
tance; a n d , once th ro w n together by fea r, th e y g ra d u a lly cam e to recognize
each o th e r ’s fe a tu re s. T h e n , fr o m in a rtic u la te a n d c o n fu sed so u n d s, th e y
little by little refin ed th e ir p o w e r o f speech: th e y agreed w ith each oth er on
verbal sy m b o ls fo r e v e ry th in g th e y en co u n tered a n d m a d e the m e a n in g o f
all w ords clear a m o n g them selves. B u t, w ith such c o n ve n tio n s arisin g all
over th e w orld, every g ro u p d id n o t sp e a k th e sa m e language, since each
one chose its vocabulary at ran d o m . In th is w a y a ll th e d ifferen t varieties
70
I — AN TIQ U E AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
o f h u m a n speech cam e a b o u t, a n d th ese f i r s t e x is tin g societies w ere the

origin o f every n a tio n .
W ith n o n e o f th e useful th in g s o f life as y et discovered, these fi r s t m en
lived b u t miserably. T h e y were inn o cen t o f clothes, u n a cq u a in ted w ith houses
or fir e , a n d lacking th e very n o tio n o f cultivated fo o d . In fa c t, ignorant even
o f h o w to store th eir w ild fo o d stu ffs, th ey m ade no sto ckp ile o f p ro visio n s
against fu t u r e needs, w herefore m a n y p erish ed in th e w inters fr o m cold a n d
lack o f fo o d . B u t in th e course o f tim e, ta u g h t by experience, th e y so u g h t the
shelter o f caves f o r th e w in te r a n d p u t aside f o r later use those fo o d s capable
o f being preserved. A n d , after g a in in g kn o w led g e o f fir e a n d oth er conve
niences, by degrees th e y discovered the arts a n d o th er things o f advantage to
h u m a n existence. F or g en era lly sp ea kin g , in all th in g s necessity its e lf served P iero di C osim o, T h e
H u n t, c. 1495-1 5 0 5 .
as m a n ’s tutor, a n d she g ru d g ed no t her lessons on all subjects to a creature
T his c o m position
n aturally a d ep t a n d h a vin g the benefit o f hands, speech, a n d shrew dness o f was p art o f a cycle
o f paintings w hich
m in d in all endeavors.
C o sim o devoted to
B u t, to observe reasonable prop o rtio n s in our w o rk, w e sh a ll let w h a t has th e origins o f
already been sa id o f m a n ’s beginnings a n d earliest w ay o f life suffice u s.24 hum anity. H u n tin g
is o n e o f th e m ajor
U ndoubtedly, no such coherent description o f hum an prehistory stages in the h u m a n
was again put forward until the arrival o f B oucher de Perthes in the experience. H ere,
th e re is ‘n o th in g bu t
nineteenth century. B ut this reconstruction —based as m uch on ethno h o rro r and death [...]:
graphic observation as on the random discoveries o f the sort recounted a fight in the ju n g le
w ith all against all’
by H erodotus and Thucydides — did no t becom e a pragmatic know l (E. Panofsky).
edge w hich could have led antiquaries to find the answers to their
questions in the soil. T he Greeks had not created an active archaeology,
and this was not through lack o f curiosity or inventiveness. And just as
71
history remained the art o f story-telling, in w hich critique, and above

all the establishment o f the sources, was o f secondary im portance, so, in
the case o f prehistory, the quality and ingenuity o f the reconstruction
was the prim e objective. T he antiquaries did not, any m ore than the
historians, feel obliged to state and justify their sources.
M en build in g cabins
and hues, w o o d
e ngraving bv Jean
G o u jo n , 1547, from a
French translation o f
V itruvius’ treatise O n
A rch itcctu rc.T hc text
presents animals as a
m odel tor prim itive
m an.
M .I. Finley has brilliantly show n that T hucydides, despite the

genius o f his w riting, was no t in the m ode o f von R anke; n o r were
Varro and Lucretius like B oucher de Perthes; the curiosity o f the
Ancients about the past rem ained philosophical and did no t give rise
to the profession o f historian as we understand it today.
T h e philosophers and antiquaries o f the G raeco -R o m an w orld
knew w here to place the antiquity o f m an and how to establish a
relative chronology w hich, even if not calibrated, suggested a con
siderable difference in age betw een the m en o f the Dark Ages and
those o f m ythical tim es. T hey sensed that natural phenom ena, or
even the evolution o f plants and animals, could contribute to lay the
foundations for a natural history o f m ankind. In elaborating a theory
o f stages — hunting, pastoralism, agriculture — they introduced for
the first tim e a rationality in the developm ent o f life-styles and tech
niques. T hey did no t hesitate, as Lucretius suggested, to affirm that
hum an progress was technical progress w hich, from stone to bronze
and up to iron, was linked to m an’s ability to extract raw m inerals o f
nature. However, we m ust n o t for all that think that this vision o f
72
Sccne o t prim itive life,

w o o d engraving by
Cesare C esariano,
1521. P rim itive m an is
show n using stone
tools —an interesting
im age to r a tim e w h en
certain scholars w ere
b e g in n in g to question
the real n ature o f
'th u n d erb o lts'.
the past was com m only accepted. At the same time, prim itivist ideas
ab out hum an decline since the G olden Age, cyclical theories and
m yths as a m eans o f explanation all battled against the rationalist
m ethods w hich our vision o f the history o f hum an science is led to
prefer. It w hat we now call archaeology did not em erge fully-arm ed
from G reek tradition, it is because, as M .I. Finley reminds us, Greeks
and R om ans did not have the same idea o f history as ourselves:
T h e ancient G reeks already possessed the skills a n d the m a n p o w er w ith
w hich to discover the shaft-graves o f M y ce n a e a n d the palace o f C nossus,
an d th ey h a d the intelligence to lin k the buried stones — h a d th e y dug them
up — w ith the m y th s of A g a m e m n o n a n d M in o s, respectively. W h a t th e y
lacked was the interest: th a t is where the enorm ous g a p lies betw een their
c iv iliza tio n a n d ours, betw een their view o f the p a st a n d ours.25
In its dazzling intuitions and unpublished observations, the vision
o f the past handed dow n to us from G raeco -R o m an antiquity co n
stitutes for historians, and especially archaeologists, a call for hum il
ity, for the questioning and criticism o f evidence.
73
C H I N E S E A N D J A P A N E S E A N T I Q U A R I E S
IN T H E S E A R C H F O R T H E PAST
B ronze o f th e Shang We have seen w ith Sima Q ian the distinguished role w hich the C h i
dynasty (1650—1066
nese o f antiquity assigned to know ledge o f the past and observation
bc ;) and porcelain o f
the Q ia n lo n g p erio d o f the earth. Thanks to the form idable continuity o f their ideogram s,
(1 736-95). In C hina,
scholars were able, over the centuries, to decipher inscriptions and
bronze vessels w ere
associated from die m aintain an infallible contact w ith the past. T he existence o f a cen
b e g in n in g w ith royal tralised em pire and the increasingly im portant role o f the scholars
pow er. R ediscovered
u n d e r th e Song certainly constitute an advantage w hich explains the success o f a
dynasty' in the particular form o f C hinese historiography. Texts such as those o fX ie
eleventh c en tu ry a d ,
w h e n im p o rtan t H uilian in the fifth century A D vouch for the curiosity o f im perial
chance finds w ere a bureaucrats and the ritual devotion given to the discovery o f ancient
pow erful stim ulus to
archaeological burials, just as we find, from the fifth century onwards, attem pts at
exploration , these epigraphical critique. In a w ork entitled y a n sh i j i a x u n an author used
bronzes becam e a
source o f inspiration
an inscription to rectify an erroneous title.26 Later Z hao M ingcheng,
for potters. Im itations in his preface to a book on antiquities, characterised the establish
o f ancient vases,
e n h an ced by the
m ent o f p ro o f by means o f inscriptions in the follow ing terms:
‘yellow im p erial’ A fte r reading the classics in m y y o u th , I fo u n d the deeds o f princes a n d
c o lo u r o r a dragon
m inisters recorded in detail in the histories, a n d although right a n d w rong is
design, the porcelains
o f the Q in g dynasty praised a n d criticized, this is based on the subjective opinions o f the writers
reflect the archaising
a n d m a y fa ll short o f reality. [ ...] B u t ta ke such things as chronology, geogra
taste o f the E m p ero r
Q ia nlong, a passionate ph y, official titles, a n d genealogy, f o r exa m p le. W h e n archaeological m aterials
collector o f ancient
are used to e x a m in e these things, th irty to fo r ty p e r cent o f th e data are in
p o tte ry and bronzes.
conflict. T h a t is because historical w ritings are produced by latter-day writers
a n d cannot fa il to contain errors. B u t the inscriptions on stone a n d bronze
are m ade at the tim e the events take place a n d can be trusted w ith o u t reser
vation, a n d th u s discrepancies m a y be discovered.27
So, almost ten centuries before w estern defenders o f the pre-em i
B ronze vessels feature nence o f epigraphy over tradition, C hinese scholars affirm ed w ith
on the C oro m an d el astonishing precocity the special nature and historical quality o f epi-
lacquers e x p o rte d to
E urope in the graphic sources. T he Greeks attributed to one o f their earliest histo
seventeenth and rians, Acusilaus (sixth century b c ) , the idea o f w ritin g genealogies
eig h te en th centuries,
as on this m edal-
from bronze tablets: ‘A k u s ila o s [ ...] a very early h isto ria n . H e ivrote
cabinet in the genealogies based on inscriptions on b ro n ze w hich according to tradition his
B ibliotheq u e
fa th e r h a d fo u n d w h ile digging in som e corner o f his p ro p erty ,’28
N ationale, Paris. H ere
three bronze vessels o f This fragm ent, even if apocryphal in part, nonetheless emphasises
the H a n dynasty (206
b c —a d 220) are clearly
that the presence o f inscribed texts is a guarantee w hich establishes
identifiable. the legitim acy o f historical discourse. C hinese historians w ent still
74
I - A N T IQ U E AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
75
fu rth er in affirm ing the p re-em in en ce o f epigraphic over literary

sources. T he inscription had superior authenticity because it was a
direct testim ony o f events produced by contem poraries themselves.
In C hina, inscriptions were associated w ith sacrificial tripods, even
m ore valued because they w itnessed a past w hich only diviners and
the literate were capable o f interpreting. Prestige objects and instru
m ents o f worship, tripods were sem iophores p a r e xe lk n c e and as such
necessary to the accession o f the new em peror, the harvesting o f
crops and resistance to invaders. Sima Q ian devoted m uch o f his
R ecords o f the G ra n d H isto ria n o f C h in a to the discovery o f ancient
tripods; the learned strove to decipher the inscriptions on these as
p ro o f o f their know ledge and th eir devotion to the em peror. Here,
from 133 B C ., is the story o f Li Shaojun, sage and m agician, w ho
passed him self off as im m ortal:
W h e n L i S h a o -c h u n appeared before the emperor, the latter q u estio n ed
him about an ancient b ro n ze vessel w hich the em peror h a d in his possession.
‘T h is vessel,’ replied L i S h a o -c h u n , ‘was p resen ted a t the C yp ress C h a m b er
in the ten th year o f the reign o f D u k e H u a n o f C h ’i [ 6 7 6 Bc].’ When the
inscription on the vessel was deciphered, it was fo u n d th a t it h a d in fa c t
belonged to D u k e H u a n o f C h ’i. E v ery o n e in the palace was filled w ith
a sto n ish m e n t a n d decided th a t L i S h a o -c h im m u st be a sp irit w ho h a d lived
hu ndreds o f years.29
Everything in this story is archaeological: the ancient vase w hich
belonged to the em peror, the dating confirm ed by the inscription,
the m arvelling o f the court at a m agician whose age was confirm ed
by the epigraphy. For the contem poraries o f Li Shaojun, archaeology
came to the aid o f magic and n o t magic to the aid o f archaeology.
Sima Q ian related this story w ith a certain irony. Like Pausanias he
possessed a real interest in antiquities but he reveals him self to be
closer to H erodotus in his feeling for factual history and his taste for
solid detail. His w ork confirm s w hat we already know to be the
image o f the past held by the C hinese scholars o f antiquity and the
M iddle Ages. Various docum ents confirm the role o f ancient objects
and inscriptions in social life. T here are varying accounts o f the find
ing and accurate decipherm ent o f inscribed bronzes in the second
and first centuries B C ,311 and a Treatise on O m e n s com piled at the end
o f the fifth century A D contains a description o f fifteen different dis
coveries co n cerning fo rty -o n e vases, briefly described w ith their
origins carefully indicated. In the same period the first treatises on
numismatics appeared, w hich were also linked to the interests o f col
76
lectors. O n e o f these collections has survived and

consists o f tw o big ceram ic jars and a silver vase
All 0 '
containing crockery, jewellery, rare m edicines and ■! A
a group o f coins in clu d in g one o f K husrau II
(ad 591—628), last king o f the Sasanian dynasty
o f Iran. This treasure belonged to a governor-
general o f the S hen-X i region, Li Shouli, w ho
died in 741, and contained, besides the B yzantine
coins, a variety o f C hinese coins o f w hich the
oldest dated back to at least the fifth century BC,
and Japanese coins o f the eighth century ad .31
W ith the establishm ent o f the Song dynasty in
the ninth century the taste for antiquities seems
to have becom e still m ore pronounced. It was the
tim e o f catalogues o f antiquities. A little later
w e see the appearance o f the first w o o d c u t-
illustrated books on antiquities: the K a o g u tu in
1092 and the B o g u tu in 1122. Each o f these
works presents drawings o f vases and facsimiles o f
inscriptions. T hey are organised along typological
lines and the objects are dated; 224 catalogue entries m ade up the In the eleventh
c en tu ry C hinese
K a o g u tu and 839 the B ogu tu. T he production o f copies for cult p u r
scholars com piled the
poses, and even fakes to satisfy the collectors, are p ro o f o f the co n first catalogues ot
a ncient vases o f the
tem porary craze for this type o f object. We possess an extraordinary
second and first
autobiographical testim ony to the spirit o f the collectors o f the time. m illennia b c . H ere is a
vase o f D in g type,
It is the postscript w ritten in 1132 by the wife o f the aforem en
taken from a 1752
tioned antiquary, Z hao M ingcheng as an addition to her husband’s edition o f Kaogu tu.
book, M e ta l a n d S to n e A rchives. If we contem plate the m oving p o r T h e caption gives the
n am e o f the collector.
trait o f this enterprise traced by O w en ,32 we find, in this lady’s astute O n th e back is a
w riting, the m ost literate and feeling critique o f the collection: re p ro d u c tio n o f the
ru b b in g of the
W h e n the hook collection was com plete, we set up a library in ‘R e tu r n inscrip tio n w hich
H o m e ’ hall, w ith h u g e bookcases w here the books were catalogued in details the casting
process o f the ritual
sequence. There w e p u t the books. W h e n e ve r I w a n ted to read, I w o u ld ask vase. A label indicates
for the key, m a k e a note in the ledger, then ta ke o u t the books. I f one o f them the find-spot,
dim ensions and
was a bit dam aged or soiled, it w o u ld be our responsibility to repair the spot w eight o f the object.
a n d copy it o u t in a n ea t h a n d . T h ere was no longer the sam e ease a n d casu
alness as before. T h is was an a tte m p t to g a in convenience w hich led instead
to nervousness a n d a n xiety. I c o u ld n ’t bear it. A n d I began to p la n h o w to do
aw ay w ith m ore th a n one m eat in our meals, h o w to do aw ay w ith all the
fin e r y in m y dress; for m y hair there were no o rn a m en ts o f bright pearls or
77
A c ollecto r o f ancient
vases appraises his
collectio n , p a in tin g by
Tu C h in , end of the
sixteenth century.
In a terrace garden a
ric h am ateu r shows
his purchases to a
friend, w h o exam ines
th e archaic bronzes
laid o u t o n the table.
kin g fish er feathers; the h ousehold h a d no im p lem en ts f o r g ild in g or em broi

dery. /.../ B o o k s lay ranged on tables a n d desks, scattered on top o f one
a n o th er on p illo w s a n d bedding. T h is was w h a t to o k our fa n c y a n d w h a t
occupied our m in d s, w h a t drew our eyes a n d w h a t our sp irits in clin ed to;
a n d our j o y w as greater th a n the p lea su re others h a d in dancing girls, dogs,
a n d horses.33
T he com m on passion for the collection w hich united the spouses
was transform ed into oppression; the exceptional w idow o f the
n oted collector makes us gradually aware that she and her husband
(particularly herself) becam e objects in their ow n collection. She had
to abandon books, objects and paintings to the m ercy o f invaders o f
the em pire in the long flight towards the capital; w ith the last book,
the last inscription rem aining to her, she realised that she was herself
the last trace o f the collection.
N o t until the eighteenth century in the West, and then no t from a
w om an’s pen, will we find as subtle an assessment o f the alienation
w hich seized the collector. Be that as it may, scholars o f the Song
period discovered w ith passion the attraction o f the past w hen this
was ordered into a collection. T hey m ade collecting into bo th an art
and a vice, and this art clam oured for knowledge: first one should
collect objects and, to do this, go into the field and observe. From
this p erio d also date the first archaeological accounts o f travels,
w hich led scholars to describe and recover the remains o f ancient
cities. Thus we have a plan o f X i’an, the Tang capital, made in 1080
I - ANTIQU E AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
and based on m uch earlier sources. It shows w ith great precision the
m apping o f different parts o f the tow n. To m aintain their interest the
Song scholars did not restrict themselves to drawing: they classified
and interpreted their finds. A t the beginning o f the eleventh century
Liu C hang explained that the study o f ancient bronzes could satisfy
three different points o f view: religious historians could determ ine
the use o f vases, genealogists could establish the sequence o f histori
cal figures, and etymologists could decipher the inscriptions.34
W here did this passion for antiquities com e from? From tradition
and from a strong continuity, as we have seen in C hina as elsewhere,
b u t also from the existence o f a social class able to collect and study.
This accom panies a sense o f tim e and o f the erosion o f history
w hich is perfectly expressed by another contem porary: ‘B ut m o u n
tains are levelled and valleys filled and the elem ents w reak their
destruction. W hen we com e dow n to the tim e o f the C heng H o and
Hsiian H o periods (1111—1125), eight-tenths o f those ancient
objects had already been lost.’35 This attention to the past, so charac
teristic o f C hina, appeared also in Japan. In a Japanese chronicle o f
713, the H ita c h i F u d o k i, there is a description o f a shell-m ound acci
dentally discovered in the archipelago: one o f the oldest references to
prehistoric remains to exist in a m edieval text. D ating from the same
p erio d is the C hroniclc o f A n c ie n t T h in g s, w hich is an attem pt to estab
lish a m ythological history o f Japan.36 A little earlier (689—97) the
practice o f sh ik in e n sengu is attested, consisting o f razing and rebuild
ing in identical fashion every tw enty years the Im perial sanctuary at
Ise. This ritual was designed to preserve the purity o f the sanctuary
across the centuries, whilst its appearance never aged. T he original
w ooden architecture thus rem ained im m utable thanks to the archaic
skill o f the carpenters and joiners. C om pared to the C hinese, the
Japanese had thus developed a technique o f craft m em ory w hich, to
the eyes o f a Hellenist, recalls the concurrence o f w ord and marble
(see p. 22); here the skill transm itted cyclically is supposed to prevent
the m aterial deterioration o f the sanctuary. T h e repeated action o f
the artisans led in the long ru n to the m ost solid o f constructions.
19
T h e discovery of the T H E M I D D L E A G E S C O N F R O N T E D BY
T rue Cross d epicted
in a Gelasian
THE RUINS OF A N T I Q U I T Y
sacram entarv o f the
.seventh century. This
is one of th e rare
THE COLLAPSE OF THE GRAE CO - R O M A N
subjects in m edieval MODEL AND THE CRISIS OF HISTORY
iconograp h y w h ich
shows m e n excavating T h e e ra o f t h e h a g i o g r a p h e r s
the soil. H ere, C h rists
cross and those o f the
tw o thieves are show n
Since the first Ionian philosophers, the people o f classical antiquity
in an o rn am en tal
capital ‘O ’ w hich a had striven to understand the past. This effort led to the creation o f a
m an a rm ed w ith an
know ledge strongly tied to a historical genre. W hat differentiated the
axe is try in g to open.
Greeks and R om ans from the Egyptians or the Assyrians was not, as
we have seen, an interest in the past, bu t the to rm w hich this interest
took, the way o f w riting history. In the intellectual field thus cleared,
several types o f history saw the light o f day, and this diversity explains
how a descriptive history w hich strove to classify societies, institu
tions and objects could flourish alongside political history. This p ro
ject, w hich Varro incarnates towards its end, was the result o f a
m ovem ent derived from curiosity and reflection w hich considered
the relationships o f m en, o f institutions and m onum ents from a th eo
retical and classificatory view point. It cannot be separated from the
w ork o f the philosophers who, in trying to define the special nature
o f m ankind, laid the foundations for a history o f evolution in w hich
m an was the biological and social focus. Certainly, the idea o f prim i
tive m an was opposed by the myths o f the G olden Age, but people in
antiquity had little difficulty in visualising lost cities o f the past, the
herdsm en o f ancient times and their prim itive weapons, the caverns
and huts o f m en o f the earliest periods.37 W ith the progressive col
lapse o f the R o m a n Em pire, it was n o t only institutions and the
social order that disappeared, but also an intellectual frame o f refer
ence. Even if, for several centuries m ore, western culture drew on the
G raeco-R om an tradition, it was never possible for intellectuals o f the
medieval period to have the freedom , tim e and facilities w hich the
people o f antiquity enjoyed.
The difficulties o f the tim e —the wars, the effects o f m ultiple inva
sions —cannot explain everything. T he loss o f influence o f the model
o f ancient education and the affirm ation o f C hristian culture, w hich
was suspicious o f the idolatry m anifest in the texts, m onum ents and
ancient objects, counted for som ething. In the great upheaval w hich
ravaged the West, bishops and m onks becam e the curators and
80
I — A N TIQ U E AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
I
C t r r i m c t t i * * f \ V ‘C T o t i * * - i h a r x .,
y— I ^ m tlO l i ' n f W * v \
i? 7 ^ Y c e ; i i a t ’ o t C - 'i ^ w r s <5'
! II
i t t l n - r i T * tv u 9 r tn M T r .\ y u m
itic iw ib ; - r u m i r t v b i l i r - P
u e t 4 *n o Set
•sr
5 c jt s i t r i'jiin
I n n e n c t c
f i i f c i - n v f l n
f l e j z x o - j e * v n c r
- cut c u n c ^ oboe
& 1 I '
\ i e r
r
I r i c i ^ p o c u t i t ^ m t iU1’ n v n :
1 1
(; r w
f4 '
T i r p i l i
I p t a -i
81
Cfi>rWAOiC
" 'S- y J r w ?
,, * n -r v . v f i t i f i i U S *-3 n
: «•*» ; \ n « i* if wv> r i ■V
G re e k m an u scrip t datin g to a d 510, illustrating the discourse o f St G re g o ry o f N aziannus

(3 2 9 -8 9 ) en title d A gainst J u lia n .T h e E m p ero r Julian, called Julian th e A postate (3 3 2 -6 3 ), had
rejected C h ristian ity an d resto red paganism . In th e to p section he is sh o w n leaving a ro u n d tow er
an d dragged against his w ill by a pagan p riest tow ards an o p e n cave b e n ea th a to m b , in w h ic h
can be seen an active crow d o f dem ons. L ed by th e sam e p riest (in th e low er section), Julian,
follow ed by tw o officials, is p resen t at th e im m o la tio n o f a bull sacrificed by th e priest.
82
I — AN TIQ U E AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
defenders o f literacy and literature, exercising this function w ith a

devotion that w ould be hard to reproach. T he collapse, no t only o f
the Em pire, but o f the city as a place o f local culture, progressively
swept away a certain type o f m an and, w ith him , a philosophical way
o f ‘m aking history’. So came the tim e o f the hagiographers, and the
clergy had to rid the countryside o f the still num erous remains o f
paganism, because the type o f history w hich the new ruling dynasties
dem anded had to justify their rapid rise to prom inence and affirm
their descent from a prestigious past. T he clergy set o u t n o t only to
expurgate ancient literature o f w orks w h ich could threaten H oly
S cripture but, above all, they show ed little interest any m ore in
digressions on hum an origins. T hey had too m uch to do to establish
that the Franks, like the R om ans, w ere descended from the Trojans,
and to reconcile the R evelation w ith G raeco-R om an history, w hich
was all that was available.
It should no t be forgotten that the arrival o f the ‘barbarians’ in the
E m pire was at first characterised by a massive h u n t for treasure.
R o m e itself did n o t escape pillage by Alaric and his successors. P ro
copius gives a detailed description o f the Vandals sailing towards
Africa, laden w ith Im perial treasures. Palaces, temples, private houses,
villas abandoned by their owners and servants were easy prey, and the
‘barbarians’ were n o t the only ones to take advantage. This im m ense
upheaval o f people and possessions engendered a progressive redistri
b u tio n o f property and belongings. In fact the m onum ents o f R o m e
did n o t begin to fall into ru in w ith the arrival o f the ‘barbarians’. In
376 Valens, G ratian and Valentinian issued an order that forbade
house-builders to use m arble and stone from m onum ents.38 In 458
M ajorius issued a decree ordering the prefect Aurelius to pu t an end
to further destruction. T h eo d o ric him self was careful to preserve the
m onum ental setting o f the city and charged his agent:
W ith the u p keep o f ancient things in their original glory, a n d to see to it
th a t the n ew d id n o t spoil the old, f o r in the sa m e w ay th a t o n e ’s clothes
sh o u ld m atch in colour fo r one to be su ita b ly dressed, in order fo r a palace to
be sp len d id every p a r t o f it m u st be as bea u tiful as the rest.39
Such a p ro nounced interest in m onum ents naturally led him to
adorn his palace in R avenna w ith the finest colum ns and m ost beauti
ful marbles from R o m e. T h e acquisition o f statues and colossi still
w ent on, but w hat o f excavating graves and sarcophagi? T heodoric
was to give juridicial expression to the right o f escheat w hich affected
the m ost protected places, the graves and funerary m onum ents:
83
M osaic sh o w in g a
v iew o f T h e o d o ric s
palace, from
Sant’A pollinare
N u o v o at R avenna, jjnaigaBBEiaiBiswwfa'FiiaiaBr asisisiarajsic
sixth century. A nxious
for architectural
m agnificence,
T h e o d o ric (4 5 5 -5 2 6 )
d e co rated his palace
w ith countless statues
a n d R o m a n remains.
W e therefore direct y o u , b y th is m oderata jussio, w here y o u hear o f

buried treasures to proceed to the sp o t w ith suitable w itnesses a n d reclaim for
the p u b lic Treasury eith er g o ld or silver, abstaining, however, fr o m actually
laying h a nds on the ashes o f the dead. [ ...] it is n o t greedy to take aw ay
w h a t the holder o f it can never m o u rn the loss of. 40
H ere was a law w hich licensed looting —a legal recognition o f the
activities o f thousands attracted by the riches o f the houses, temples
and all sorts o f buildings abandoned by th eir ow ners. T h e o d o ric ’s
rescript symbolised a change o f tho u g h t and attitude. T he fall o f the
R o m an Em pire in the fifth century A D had m ore than ju st political,
econom ic and social consequences. It left the p o pulation o f the
Em pire to com e to grips w ith a vast architectural inheritance and an
adm inistrative infrastructure w hich could no longer be justified.
Everyone, from the pope to the king to the peasants, had to learn to
live w ithin a landscape massively m arked by the m aterial remains o f a
defunct empire. All the same, this confrontation w ith the past was no t
restricted to the West. T he B yzantine em perors o f the fifth century
accorded great im portance to the discovery o f ‘treasures’ and to o k
fiscal measures to seize for the state treasury the num erous finds,
especially m onetary, w hich w ere reported to them . T h eir anxiety to
draw on such resources was linked to the need to control the extor
tions o f the ‘grave robbers’, thieves w ho specialised, as in Egypt, in
the looting o f tombs. Photius (in the ninth century) tells the follow -
i
84
ing story: ‘A group o f m en w ent to open up a G reek tom b in search

o f riches. As they laboured in vain, and had found nothing, each said
to his neighbour, “Unless we kill a dog and eat its flesh, the earth will
n o t yield up w hat we are looking for.” N o sooner was this said than
it was done.’41 T h e grave-robbers did no t simply offend hum an laws.
In their recourse to the practice o f pagan magic they challenged the
divine law. In the West, as in the East, the clergy sought to control the
irresistible attraction for treasure w hich the econom ic crises and
insecurity m ade even m ore desirable.
A CIVILISATION OF RUINS?
G r e g o r y o f T o u r s , S a i n t R u p r e c h t a n d th e
d is c o v e r y o f I u v a v u m
E veryw here lay the remains o f fortifications and works o f art, and at
the heart o f the cities, gigantic m onum ents. T he tow n and country
landscape o f the sixth and seventh centuries AD was like a kind o f
shrunken garm ent and m en had to m ake do w ith now obsolete co n
structions w hich they had n o t the means to m aintain. T he R o m an
baths, aqueducts and villas no longer excited adm iration or w onder,
and the inhabitants had neither tim e n o r inclination to contem plate
th eir long history.
T h ey had to live w ith them , rearranging, m odifying and m ore
often, o f course, destroying them . T he ruin was not ju st a vestige o f
an abolished past but, according to circumstances, a functional asset,
a device w h ich at the cost o f simple alteration could be m ade useful,
or m ore often than not, an obstacle to be cleared by hard work. For
people at the start o f the M iddle Ages rapport w ith the past m eant
continuity. T hey had no sense o f a ru p tu re — w hy should they? —
betw een the remains o f the Em pire and th eir daily lives. A nd the
clergy did n ot think otherw ise as they searched avidly through texts
for the same scattered fragments w hich townsfolk and countryfolk
retrieved from the soil. W h a t difference was there betw een G er
manic chiefs installed in the palace o f a R o m a n governor, peasants
w ho appropriated an abandoned part o f a rural villa, princes w ho
q uarried m arble from the big towns to pave their halls, bishops w ho
collected colum ns, statues and sarcophagi to adorn th eir churches
and tom bs, and the scholars w ho, in the un certain peace o f their
libraries, tracked dow n the citations o f the ancient authors? To trans-
85
tUumfctjtt&KCi vuoerctuat9 >mm

% io temvuttotietuemrfvuut>
D iscovery o f th e relics o f St A m phibalus (2 8 6 -3 0 3 ), depicted

in a th irte e n th -c e n tu ry m an uscript, th e Chronica majora.
U n d e r th e eye o f R o b e r t, E arl o f St Albans, th e w o rk m e n
dig in th e earth.
86
I — A N T IQ U E AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
form the remains o f the Em pire into a fram ew ork for the new way
o f life, there had to be an art o f exploiting the ruins. This is w hy the
sixth and seventh centuries, before w hat we have com e to call the
C arolingian renaissance, seem so dark to us; this is w hy the interest
in the past seems m ore utilitarian than cultural. Already, however,
som e clerics had retu rn ed to the path o f tradition, and G regory o f
Tours in his H is to r y o f th e F ra n k s gives evidence o f this desire to
m aintain links w ith classical culture. It was C hilderic, for example,
w ho was preoccupied by the state o f learning and gave the order to:
‘rew rite the books o f the A ncients, w hich had
been w o rn away w ith a pum ice stone.’42
In m atters o f architecture, m uch m ore than
pum ice was required to make the m onum ents in
th e landscape disappear. Ever since C hristanity
had becom e the state religion u n d er C onstan
tine in the fourth century, the pagan tem ples had
fallen into disuse. In 382 tem ple assets becam e
taxable, and in 391 Theodosius forbade the use
o f temples for all cult celebrations. T he C hristian
em pire sought less to destroy the symbols o f the
ancient cult than to rem ove th em from pagan
practice. However, the path o f the m issionaries
was long and strew n w ith pitfalls, because the
people often resisted this au th o ritarian prose-
lytism. T h e lives o f the saints abounded w ith
m ore o r less com ical episodes in w h ich the
heroes w ere confronted w ith the defenders o f
the ancient religion. H ere again the bishop’s concern was m ore to T h e search fo r the
relics o f St E tienne,
transform than to destroy, as witness G regory the Great in the sixth
from th e E c h te rn a c h
century: ‘D o not destroy the pagan tem ples, only the idols w hich are G ospels, eleventh
century. C hristians
found in them . As for the m onum ent, sprinkle it w ith holy water,
in q u est o f relics
erect altars and place relics there.’43 It was n o t a tim e for taking are show n o p e n in g
a tom b.
stock, for analysis or em otion, but for continuity, for the dogged sub
stitution o f one religion for another in buildings w here the afflic
tions o f th e tim e did n o t allow for reconstruction. B ut equally,
beyond the ruins or the intact m onum ents w hich w ere easily visible
everywhere, the hope o f finding treasure was com m on to kings, vil
lains and abbots. H ere is the edifying story o f the abbot Lupicinus:
Because he lacked m eans, h a vin g sp e n t so m uch f o r the b enefit o f the com
m u n ity, G o d revealed to the abbot L u p ic in u s a place w here ancient treasures
81
were h id d en . H e w e n t to this place alone, a n d brought back as m uch silver

a n d g o ld as he could to the m onastery.44
H ere was an abbot luckier than N ero, but it is true that he sought
treasure in the cause o f God. T he w orthy m onks or saints o f the tim e
were no t simply preoccupied w ith the pagan tem ples or the treasure
o f the past buried in the soil; they had to com e to term s w ith even
m ore rem ote sites, such as the discovery by Saint R u p rec h t o f the
tow n o f Iuvavum in N orica (Salzburg):
H e came to realise tha t, in a place near the river Iva ru m , w hich was called
by its ancient nam e o f Iu v a v u m , there were in ancient tim es n u m erous and
w o n d e rfu l b uildings, a lm o st in ru in s a n d
covered by th e fo r e st. H a v in g u n d erstood
this, the m a n o f G o d w ish e d to verify it
w ith his o w n eyes, a n d the th in g was
p ro v ed to be a u th en tic. H e a sk e d D u k e
T h eo d o siu s to authorise h im to say a mass
to p u r ify a n d sa n c tify the place a n d he
u n d erto o k to rebuild it, f i r s t raising a b ea u
tifu l church to G o d .45
T he above anecdote reveals the
symbolic conquest undertaken by the
C hurch in the sixth and seventh cen
turies. It was a m atter o f ensuring the
Ivory pan el carved control o f space, o f replacing w ith C hristian tradem arks the opulent
w ith a hom age to
signs o f a pagan past. To affirm their expropriation o f the territo ry
m usic, fo u rth cen tu ry
a d . In th e eleventh the bishops or the saints had to know how to observe, locate and
c en tu ry it was used as
briefly identify the ‘ruins o f ancient tim es’. T hey displayed no inter
a cover for th e A u tu n
Tonary, a co llectio n o f est in the past as such, no curiosity in the m onum ents or objects,
scores. Such ivories only a desire to purify the w orld o f the pagan miasma w hich was still
played a significant
role in the so deeply rooted. T he contem poraries o f A bbot Lupicinus or Saint
transm ission o f R u p re c h t w ere no less attentive to the past than the friends o f
classical art to the
M iddle Ages. C icero or the bureaucrats o f the court o f N ero, but nothing drove
them to ask about the m en w ho built the m onum ents they
observed, only to battle against their beliefs.
88
RECONSTRUCTION AND RECOVERY

OF THE PAST
C h a r l e m a g n e ’s c l e r k s
T h e clerks o f the high m edieval p erio d were perfectly capable o f

draw ing historical conclusions from the study o f the landscape. H is
torians from Caesar to Orosius in the fifth century a d had kept alive
the m em ory o f the site o f Alesia. N o one doubted that this was the
place w here V ercingetorix surrendered to Caesar, but it is fascinating
to discover that during the n inth century A D the
B ishop o f A uxerre and his brother, the famous
A bbe Loup de Ferrieres, were already preoccu
pied w ith th e identification o f the site o f the
capital o f a little-know n Gallic tribe, the M andu-
bians. Loup, w ho was staying at Fulda, discovered
in the library o f the rich C arolingian abbey the
text o f C aesar’s C o m m e n ta rie s, w hich he im m edi
ately sent to the Bishop o f Auxerre. This discov
ery enabled H eric, a m o n k o f S aint-G erm ain
d ’Auxerre, to suggest several years later that the
site o f M o n t A uxois could be identified w ith
Caesar’s Alesia:
You too, A le sia , w hose d e stin y was set by C a esa r’s
arm ies / I t w o u ld be w rong fo r m e to refuse to cele
brate yo u in m y verses / Protectress o f the frontiers o f
the territories / C a esa r a tta ck e d y o u in fe a rso m e
com bat / A n d held the R o m a n lines w ith d ifficu lty in
un eq u a l com bat / L e a rn in g w h a t G a u l could achieve / A n a rm y d efending B ronze statuette o f
C harlem agne
its independence / O f th a t ancient f o r t there are bu t a f e w rem ains.46
(72 4 -8 1 4 ) on
T h e christianisation o f Gaul was no t lim ited to the founding o f horseback, dating
churches and m onasteries o r the conversion o f the masses. T he from 8 6 0 .T h e
influence o f a ntique
clergy sought to learn the history o f these lands, the b etter to insin art is evident in the
uate them selves into accepted tradition. D u rin g the C arolingian tre a tm e n t o f th e cloak
folds and in the
perio d they did n o t disdain from taking an interest in a rem ote past statu ette ’s close
o f w h ich a good ecclesiastical adm inistration occasionally allowed resem blance to the
e questrian statue o f
th em a glimpse. W hy were Loup and H eric so interested in M o n t M arcus A urelius in
Auxois, if n o t because that hill was the scene o f the miracles o f Saint R o m e , w hich had
survived the centuries
R eine? In 866 the Bishop o f A uxerre organised the transfer o f the as a visible
m arty r’s relics from the chapel on M o n t Auxois to the m onastery o f m o n u m e n t.
89
O pposite: Flavigny. T h e narrator o f this event takes the opp o rtu n ity to rem ind
M e lc h io r Feselen,
us o f the history o f the site:
Siege o f A lesia by
J u liu s Caesar , 1533. S o th a t the cause o f the destruction o f A le s ia m a y n o t rem ain h id d en , the
T his re c o n stru ctio n
a tten tiv e reader w ill learn th a t the m ig h ty em peror o f th e R o m a n s, fu liu s ,
expresses b e tte r th an
any o th e r h o w the w ho secured the m onarchy a n d w ho, w ith his g rea t armies, brought alm o st
Alesia m y th was
the w hole w orld beneath R o m a n a u th o rity , as he h im s e lf w rote in his book
elaborated after
th e rediscovery o f T he Gallic Wars, after h a vin g su b d u ed all G a u l, established his camp. T h e
C aesar’s text.
G a u ls fo r m e d a conspiracy; by m eans o f g rea t m ilita ry operations a n d m a n y
battles he crushed the rebellion w hich had spread to all th e cities, w hich had
jo in e d their arm ies a gainst h im [ ...] . H e stru ck th em d o w n , a n d m ade sure
th a t th e to w n was destroyed a n d th a t n o th in g resem bling it was ever rebuilt
[■■■]■ T h e site, w hich w as com pletely razed, is in a very fa vo u ra b le p o sitio n ,
as a n yo n e can see. B u t w h e th e r its restoration w as su b se q u e n tly begun, or
fin is h e d , by so m e u n k n o w n person, w e have no d o cu m en t to tell us.47
T om b o f th e A b b o t T he narrator engages w ith the interplay o f history and its causes.

Isarn, 1060. Preserved
T he description o f the landscape leads him to explore the passage o f
in th e basilica o f
S a in t-V icto r in time, the succession and the chain o f events. His view point is that o f
M arseilles, this to m b
an observer attentive to local topography —he was, after all, present
is an exact replica o f
a G a llo -R o m a n during this archaeological process, the exhum ation o f the body o f
sarcophagus from
the saint. T he site is perceived in its history, w hich continued after
Saulieu.
the victory o f Caesar. H e clearly noticed that some o f the G allo-
R o m a n m onum ents were constructed after the siege. H ere is a sense
o f place and a precision o f observation w hich was to elude some o f
his distant successors until the n in eteen th century.
T h e remains o f the pagan past w ith its funerary customs did pose
num erous problem s to the clerics. In 866 M ichael I, K ing o f B ul
garia, consulted Pope N icholas to d eterm in e w h e th e r one could
dedicate prayers to those w ho died in the old faith. T he Pope replied
90
91
w ith a form al edict: ‘For those o f your ancestors

w h o died outside the Faith, it is im possible to
pray by reason o f the sin o f unbelief.’ Priests were
obsessed w ith the eradication o f ancient funerary
custom s, and p rohibited the burial o f C hristians
near to pagan tom bs. Such custom s did n o t cease
overnight, as is shown in the num erous warnings
issued by the clergy in central E urope and Scandi
navia. T he presence o f the ancient and protohis-
toric past was evident in the shape o f tum uli and
megaliths. Polish archaeologists have observed the
ex ten t to w h ich tum uli are present in the
m edieval chronicles and inventories o f their co u n
try: Trans m o n te m ad tu m u lo s p a g a n o m m (across the
hill towards the tum uli o f the pagans), in tu m u lo
g ig a n tis (near the m o u n d o f the giant), ad tum b a s
p a g a n o m m (towards the tom bs o f the pagans). All
o f these expressions clearly indicate the part
played in the topography o f the m edieval land
> .... JSSF scape by archaeological rem ains.48
J . J . U 1.1 IiJ cl, ■ l ~
If, little by little, ch u rchm en and princes
showed o th er interests than h u n tin g for treasure, it
is because som ething had changed. In laying claim
r C-..-CV .
to the w estern em pire, C harlem agne set him self
h it '
up m uch m ore than his predecessors as heir to the
m ight o f R o m e — a claim n o t w ith o u t cultural
consequences. For, in refounding the em pire, the
D raw ings from an new em peror surrounded him self w ith celebrated clerics (such as
e lev en th -cen tu ry
Paul Diacre or Alcuin), he established or expanded the m onasteries
co m m e n tary on
V itru v iu s’ treatise and re-established relations betw een the surviving representatives o f
O n Architecture.
E uropean scholarship. This first ‘renaissance’ (there w ould be others)
saw the rediscovery o f the classical tradition. In the m ore im portant
m onasteries (Bobbio, Saint-Gall, S aint-R iquier), the ancient authors
occupied a new place by the side o f the C hurch Fathers. This was
the tim e o f the great m entors, o f w h o m Loup de Ferrieres, in the
succeeding generation, w ould be one o f the m ost celebrated. T he
craze for antiquity drove C harlem agne to ask Pope A drian for p er
mission to excavate in R o m e and to extract ‘marbles and colum ns’
to adorn A ix-la-C hapelle and S aint-R iquier. A fashion developed
for using ancient sarcophagi for the burial o f the great o f the land.
92
C harlem agne him self was b u ried in a sarcophagus depicting the

burial o f P ersephone, Louis the Pious in an o th er show ing the
drow ning o f P haraoh’s soldiers in the R e d Sea.49 Beyond the recov
ery o f treasures, beyond territorial expansion, a new taste for anti H u n tin g scene (below
quity was born: statues, half-colum ns and sarcophagi becam e precious left ) on the tym p an u m
o f the A bbey o f Saint-
objects, to be used in the decoration o f churches; vessels, jewels and U rsain at B ourges,
cameos to o k their place am ong the treasures o f castles and abbeys. tw elfth century.
A ntique iconographic
D u rin g the ten th century the em peror O tto and his successors took them es reappeared in
up the torch o f R om anism w hich had been progressively abandoned R o m a n esq u e art.
This h u n tin g scene
by C harlem agne’s heirs. This was the era o f the controlled retu rn to has been identified
pagan roots, w hich, like the M idianite w om an o f Scripture w ith her by J. H u b e rt and
R . C ro z et as that
cropped hair and nails, w ould no t be ou t o f danger until it had been dep icted 011 the
thoroughly cleansed and w rapped about in the rig o u r o f theological R o m a n to m b o f
St L udre preserved
com m entary. At the m onastery o f Saint-G all the ancient works were in th e c rypt o fD e o ls
kept in a separate library reserved for m aterialis lectio. F urtherm ore, in Abbev.
the m iddle o f the eleventh cen tu ry the rules o f C luny suggested Pagan cattle sacrifice
(above), in te rio r
that, to request a pagan book, one should scratch o n e ’s ear w ith
portal o f the Saint-
o n e ’s fm ger: ‘as a dog does w ith his paw, for a heathen can only be M adeleine basilica
atVezelay, tw elfth
com pared w ith such an anim al’.50
century. A n tiq u e
For the clergy, the intellectual attraction exercised by the lure o f influence is fu rth e r
classical tradition was as strong as the lust for treasure w hich occupied d em o n strated by the
close parallels w ith
the com m on herd. However, the popularity o f ancient literature was dcpictions o f cattle
accom panied by an increasing taste for travel to the sources o f sacrifice in G allo-
R o m a n bas-reliefs.
G raeco-R om an culture. M onks journeyed from one end o f the Latin
w orld to the other. T he great abbots o f the eleventh and twelfth cen
turies, those o f Saint-B enoit-sur-Loire, C luny and Saint-D enis, had
m ade the pilgrim age to R o m e and had com e back w ith a direct
knowledge o f the m onum ents o f antiquity. At the same tim e the first
accounts appeared o f travels in Italy, such as the letter w ritten by
93
C onrad o f Q uerfurt, chancellor o f the E m peror H enry VI, w ho in

1194 visited and described many sites: the baths at Baia, the antiquities
o f Naples, the ‘labyrinth o f the M inotaur’ at Taormina. Visiting R o m e
at the same period, H ildebert de Lavardin was overwhelm ed by the
num ber, quality and diversity o f the buildings, and was virtually
dum bfounded at the vision o f the ancient tow n swallowing up the
new: ‘So many m onum ents are still standing, and so m any are falling
into ruin, that now here in the tow n is let alone but the buildings are
destroyed or restored.’51 Even in R o m e there was
an awakening interest in the protection o f build
ings. In 1162 the Senate decreed that Trajan’s
colum n should be protected: ‘We wish it to
jrcSOiPi dwioffoft,,,.
rem ain intact, w ithout decay, as long as the world
ytiTix-foWicrio
. shall last [...]. Anyone attem ping to damage it in
Ofliwr.l
any way shall be condem ned to death and his
fiinvfiln
goods seized for the treasury.’52 T he city statutes,

although m uch later (1363), contain an article
devoted ‘to ancient structures w hich m ust no t be
unfumi) destroyed’. D uring the eleventh and twelfth cen
mimraimtra
tiiibJitfuii»‘lc nnHnfioTpn
Oinnnrrtncffs'- tp'Ctmbx (o
Mim.rtuiF
turies antiquity enjoyed a new -found prestige
fliprBnfr’dJ’
Oitcjt ! am ong the clergy linked w ith the affirm ation o f
UnpninFff
tiiniiigm
IiitiiBoiiaKi'
inr_j
the intellectual role o f R om e, the developm ent o f
qie>jni yiUn scholarship, and the adm iration for R o m an tech
— ___ IH iw woutrh
B asib
UiiIB
iuoi‘7o.'wo\
f’
luiHnvonfiT
.— . it ntiiioiifiin\i,- I'i*1™. niques, especially architectural. W hen, towards the
JOgjB anitrfiojift- BL525
year 1000, Europe w rapped itself, in the words o f
"klgll iWt0 2 fn.1
tU{tl(no R aoul Glaber, in ‘a w hite m antle o f churches’, the
H cp rm p f,,.
great R o m an revival led princes and churchm en

almost everywhere to examine the soil.
Im aginary v iew o f G reek and R o m a n remains w ere no t the only antiquities to cap
S to n e h e n g e in a
ture the attention o f the learned and the curious. T here w ere other
fo u rte e n th -c e n tu ry
m anuscrip t. m onum ents in the landscape. In 1009 a cartulary o f Q u im p er states
that R u d alt and O rscand, son and grandson o f the bishop o f Vannes,
gave lands to the m onastery o f Saint-C ado. O n these lands were sev
eral piles o f stones (acervum p etra ru m ), w hich can today be identified
as m egaliths.53 T h e w rite r distinguishes b etw een a p etra jacaens (a
fallen m enhir) and a p etra sta n tiv a (a standing m en h ir). These refer
ences to m onum ents w hose place in the landscape deserved some
kin d o f topographical description have no fu rth e r com m entary.
H ow ever, they are probably the first literary references to B reton
m egaliths. W hile such notes are n o t standard in m edieval d o cu
94
m ents, n eith er are they rare. A cartulary o f

R e d o n at th e end o f the eleventh cen tu ry
records the presence o f lapides q u a ed a m in g a n tes
(large stones) in the village o f Treheguier.54 T he
clerics and lawyers also interested themselves in
G allo -R o m an remains. T h e chronicle o f Lam bert
d ’Ardres (end o f the eleventh century) tells o f a
place to the n o rth o f the tow n, ‘w here all kinds
o f pagan remains may still be found, red tiles, the
sherds o f red vessels, fragm ents o f little glass ves
sels, a place w here a m etalled track o r a road
m ade o f solid stones has b een discovered’.55
N o n e o f th e realities o f the landscape escaped
the trained eye o f the land-surveyors, the m etic
ulous attention o f the lawyers. At the same tim e
it occurred to none o f them to com m ent on it.
G u ib ert de N o g en t to o k a quite different view. A bbot o f N o tre - H elen a presides over
the ex h u m a tio n o f
D am e de N o g en t-so u s-C o u ey in 1104, he died in 1124. His autobi
th e H o ly Cross, T h e
ography contains the follow ing account: G olden Legend ,
fo u rte e n th -c e n tu ry
T h e place in q u estio n is N o v ig e n tu m . I t is ‘n e w ’ in its m onastic g uise,
m anuscript. H elena,
b u t its secular occupation goes back a very long tim e. E v e n though there is m o th e r o f the
no w ritte n evidence f o r this, th e u n u su a l, a n d in m y o p in io n n o n -C h r is tia n E m p ero r C onstantine,
had reportedly
d isposition, o f th e graves fo u n d there is p r o o f en o u g h . A r o u n d the church discovered C h ris t’s
a n d w ith in it, a n tiq u ity its e lf has brought together so m a n y sarcophagi th a t cross at the tim e o f
h e r voyage to the
th is m ass o f corpses hea p ed in such a place m u st sh o w h o w g rea t w as the H o ly Land. A ccording
renow n o f such a so u g h t-a fter spot. T h e p lacing o f th e tom bs is n o t a t all as to th e co m m e n tary by
St A m brose (33 0 -9 7 ),
w e k n o w it; th e y are arranged in a circle a b o u t one o f th e ir n u m b er; ‘she discovered the
besides, w ith in these tom bs were fo u n d vessels w hich resemble n o th in g in use bo a rd [w hich bears
th e n am e o f C hrist],
d uring C h ristia n tim es. T h e e x p la n a tio n m u s t be this: th a t these are tom bs she w orsh ip p ed the
w hich are either p a g a n , or belong to a C h ris tia n era so long ago th a t p a g a n k ing and n o t - as in
th e case o f pagan e rro r
usages were still observed ,56
and im pious vanity —
G u ib ert is probably describing a M erovingian cem etery. It is th e piece o f w o o d
itself. She adored H im
striking h o w similar his remarks and his detailed description are to
w h o had been
S trab o ’s in his acco u n t o f the discovery o f the ancient tom bs o f suspended o n the
w o o d and w hose
C o rin th by C aesar’s soldiers: the same astonishm ent w h e n faced
nam e is inscribed o n
w ith the sudden m aterialisation o f an ancient past ou t o f the earth, the b o a rd ’. A n
epigraphic ability was
the same difficulties w ith dating and in terp retin g the remains.
ne ed e d h ere to
In b o th ancient and m edieval times the earth was n o t understood distinguish C h ris t’s
as a poten tial source o f history. If antiquity revealed itself, o r rather, cross from those o f th e
thieves.
if a consciousness o f the antiquity o f remains was aw akened, it is
95
D iscovery o f th e H o ly Spear, from Crossing the Seas,

fifte en th -ce n tu ry m an u scrip t. T h e discovery o f the H o ly Spear
w h ic h p ierced C h ris t’s side b ecam e associated w ith the tradition
o f th e discovery o f th e H o ly Cross. It was at A ntioch,
en route to th e C rusades, that the C h ristia n princes
fo u n d th e H o ly Spear.
96
always in a fo rtu ito u s fashion, like a ru p tu re o f the im p erv io u s

b a rrie r w h ich separates the present from the past. Scholars were not
incapable o f o bserving or even co m m en tin g u p o n the rem ains
w h ich were revealed from excavating the soil, bu t the process owed
n o th in g to any m ethodical study o f the past. Like the Greeks and
R o m an s, the m en o f the M iddle Ages could tu rn their hand to dig
g ing in th e traditional p u rsu it o f treasure or relics. In o rd er for
those objects to fu n c tio n as h istorical signals, they m ust be
observed in a historical way — so m eth in g w h ich happened even
m ore seldom d u rin g the M iddle Ages than in
the ancient world.
THE EXHUMATION
OF T H E PAST
T h e d i s c o v e r y o f A r t h u r ’s t o m b
a t G la s to n b u r y
T h e tw elfth century was to an extent the first

p o in t since C harlem agne’s efforts at w h ich a
m ethodical consideration o f the past began to
develop in th e West. B ut the p erio d was no
longer the dom ain o f im perial history O n the
contrary, after the R om ans and Franks had
accepted the m yth o f Trojan origins, England jo in e d in w ith G eof T h e ex h u m a tio n o f
relics, L egend o f S t
frey o f M o n m o u th ’s H isto ria R e g u m B rita n n ia e (H istory o f the Kings
H ubert, fifteenth-
o f B ritain). T h e book was produced in the m anner o f a vetu stissim u s c e n tu ry m anuscript.
O n e by one, as they
liber — an ancient chronicle o f English history — w hich allowed the
are ex h u m ed , the
English th eir place w ithin the longue duree, in a direct line from the relics are carefully
placed o n th e altar.
Trojans. Even if the rather extrem e and fanciful nature o f M o n
T h e discovery is
m o u th ’s b o o k attracted im m ediate criticism , scholars o f English his a ttrib u te d to
to ry were to be inspired by it for m any years to com e. This was a C harlem agne.
tim e w h e n N o rm a n princes w ere setting o u t to research their

Saxon, C eltic and Trojan predecessors. T he m ost famous event o f the
day was, notably, the discovery o f w hat was believed to be the tom b
o f A rth u r and G uinevere at G lastonbury. A ccording to Giraldus
C am brensis,57 in 1191 the m onks o f G lastonbury A bbey w ere
rebuilding this famous sanctuary, w hich had been destroyed by fire
in 1184, w h en they found the tom b o f a m an o f extraordinary
stature and a wom an; close by was a cross bearing these words: ‘H ere
91
lies b u ried the famous king A rthur, w ith G uinevere his second wife,
in the isle o f Avalon.’T he excavation appeared factual, tangible, and
as K endrick suggested, it brought a sense o f reality: ‘K ing A rthur was
now as real as Alfred the G reat or W illiam the C o nqueror.’58 At
almost the same tim e (1191) R ich ard I o f England gave Tancred o f
Sicily59 the famous sword Excalibur, and the legend was brought to
life; precious symbols o f the past becam e objects w hich one could
touch, admire, or give as gifts.
G lastonbury was no t the only m edieval abbey to arouse archaeo
logical interest. A ccording to the chronicle o f M atthew Paris, the
abbots o f the pow erful abbey o f St Albans,
found ed u p o n the R o m a n city o f V eru-
lam ium , began to excavate the to w n ’s fo u n
dations early in the eleventh century. A bbot
Aeldred began to dig m ethodically (accord
ing to M atthew Paris it was necessary to p ro
tect the m onastery from thieves and to
control the erratic course o f the river). As the
abbot dug out and filled in, he carefully saved
tiles and stones to use in the fabric o f the
church. H e aim ed to use the site systemati
cally, like a quarry, w ith a view to construct
ing a new sanctuary. D u rin g excavation he
A m m o n ite carved in found the remains o f boats and o f shells, w hich proved that the sea
the form of a snake.
had reached that p oint in times gone by. N otably he uncovered an
To m edieval scholars
the am m o n ite enorm ous cavern w hich he attributed to a serpent. H e declared that
represented a fossil
he w ould preserve his discovery for posterity. Here, close observa
snake: to prove this it
was enou g h to carve tion and due consideration o f natural forces are m ixed w ith the clas
a snake’s head o n the sical them e o f the supernatural. T h e good abbot had probably
fossil shell.
unearthed the passage or sepulchral cham ber o f a burial m ound; to
him this looked like the lair o f a m onstrous serpent, b u t he left
things as they were, as if to leave ju d g em en t to posterity. His succes
sor, Elmer, continued to dig in one o f the tow n buildings. H e found
a kind o f book store, w hich a m onk identified as the sacred texts o f
the ancient B ritons. A m ong them was a book in Latin w hich related
the life o f St Alban. T he m onks bu rn ed the pagan books, but copied
the life o f the saint. O nce transcribed, the book crum bled into dust.
T he transcription o f the life o f St Alban m ust be treated w ith cau
tion, like the decipherm ent o f the tom b o f Alcm ene, or the tablets
o f Knossos, but the discovery deserves attention. W ere there papyri
98
1 - AN TIQ U E AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
(rotuli in the text)? In any case it is probable that the life o f St Alban
is n o th in g b ut a pious fraud w hich sought to give a religious dim en
sion to the discovery. M atthew Paris’s text ends w ith a description o f
the excavation o f the urban zone: colum ns, tiles, dressed stone. All
this m ade the abbot curious. H e w ent on to find pots, am phorae,
glass vessels, ashes — in short, he records, the rem ains o f a pagan
cemetery. T h e range o f m aterial discovered and the m ixture o f detail
and fantasy w hich characterises M atthew Paris’s account render this
one o f the finest examples o f the m edieval practice o f archaeology.
T h e m em o ry o f this famous site was
to persist in B ritish archaeology: Fran
cis B acon was created L ord Verulam
by Jam es I, and M o rtim e r W h eeler
chose the site as the m ost im p o rtan t
training excavation o f its tim e in
Great B ritain.
If the eleventh and tw elfth cen
turies saw a m ultiplication o f the evi
dence o f ancient finds, there is
n o th in g astonishing about that. N ew
building w o rk abounded and a m ore
attentive clergy looked on, supervis
ing the activities o f masons and devel
opers. A n archdeacon o f M eaux, Foulcoie de Beauvais, has left a K ing A rthur's sword,
Excalibur, being
poetic com m entary u p o n a discovery m ade o n the site o f a ‘pagan
draw n dow n in to
tem p le’ at M eaux: the w aters; the king
is show n in the
T here was a w all in the tow n w hich sh o w ed w here the ruins were. T im e
foreground;
has p a ssed , b u t the n a m e persists; the old p ea sa n ts say it is the tem ple o f fo u rte e n th -c e n tu ry
m anuscript.
M a rs — to this day, p ea sa n t, yo u call these stones the tem p le o f M ars. You
w o u ld say so w ith o u t k n o w in g why. A discovery has g iv e n us p r o o f o f this
nam e. A p e a sa n t p lo u g h in g over the ruins fo u n d a statue, it loo ked like a
livin g person. H e fo u n d a carved head w hich loo ked like n o th in g alive or
m ade by m en. A dreadful head, y et the style su its it w ell, it grim aces terrify
ingly and terror becomes it. Its laugh, its savage m o u th , its strange ferocity,
the deform ed form o f a fittin g style. E v e n before I h a d visited the site, then,
the carving was brought to me, so th a t I could d eterm in e w h a t it represented,
for w h o m a n d by w h o m it was m ade. H a v in g heard the perverse n a m e by
w hich the place is k n o w n locally, I e x a m in e d the h ead — i t ’s im possible n o t
to see h o w clearly the place its e lf instructs us, g iv in g us both the n a m e a n d
the savage head. T h is place is the tem p le o f M ars, this head is th a t o f the
99
h ea th en M a rs w rongly th o u g h t to be a g o d . In ancien t tim es w h en the cult

was alive — th u s w e n t m y reasoning - fe a r brought g o d s in to being. T h is is
dem o n stra ted by th a t place. T h e g o d has no v a lid ity a n d needs th e h a n d o f
m a n a n d th e m e d iu m o f sto n e in order to ex ist. N e ith e r m o u th , nor eye, nor
h a n d , nor fo o t , nor ear m a y stir. A r t bestows resemblance, n o t presence. H e
was n o t created G o d , because G o d created all. H e
w as created M a rs; he is therefore n o t G o d , a n d i f
he is n o t G o d , he m u st n o t be h o n o u re d .60
This curious artefact, appearing as it did out
o f the earth, held a strange fascination for the
w orthy archdeacon because it was the em bod
im ent o f the abom inable practice o f idolatry.
A t the same tim e as he was developing the
classic C hristian argum ents against the folly o f
false gods, Foulcoie was bew itched by a p er
verse influence em anating from the statue. T h e
role o f images in w orship was one o f the
m ajor points o f theological debate at the time.
H o w could pagan images be abom inated and
C hristian ones accepted? H o w could one rec
oncile the rejection o f images w ith the need
for th em w h ich drove innum erable ch u rch
m en to decorate th eir churches sum ptuously,
and even to reclaim pagan figures w ith the
Pagan divinities in ten t o f tu rn in g them into objects o f C hristian worship? F oulcoie’s
dep icted in a
diatribe calls to m ind St Jerom e: ‘T he gods adored by nations are
R em eg iu s m anuscript,
cA 100. Saturn, now alone in their niches w ith the owls and the night birds. T h e
standing at th e rig h t,
gilded C apitol languishes in dust and all the tem ples o f R o m e are
resem bles o n e o f th e
statues o f saints given covered w ith spiders’ webs.’61
by H e n ri II for the
This C hristian derision is n o t unlike that o f Lucian, w ho m ocked
altar o f Basle
C athedral. Ju p ite r is the bats and rats w hich chose to live am ong the statues o f the great
seated o n his th ro n e
est gods o f Olym pia. T he pagan im age is thus the m ost subtle and
in th e m a n n e r o f a
m edieval king, and dangerous o f the tem ptations o f antiquity. In his co n dem nation,
his p ro p h e tic crow even destruction, the cleric is n o t m erely being faithful to theologi
resem bles St J o h n s
eagle. A pollo in his cal canons, it is a convenient way o f consigning one part o f the
ch ario t holds the antique heritage to hell, whilst p u ttin g the rem ainder to a better, or
T h re e G races like
a b o u q u e t. different, use. Treasures — the capitals o f colum ns, building materials
—these w ere n o t only tolerated in churches after the year 1000, they
w ere actively sought w ith a passion am ounting to frenzy. T h at said,
Foulcoie was m uch m ore than a proselytising priest. In his poem he
100
■ PSSlpisiBS P n M l i i i ' S §p Wfflwrtwiwi E -m s /m m m M Scene from th e life

o f St Sylvester, fresco
p a in te d by M aso di
B anco, c. 1336, o n the
walls o f the B ardi
C h ap e l in S anta-C roce,
Florence. St Sylvester
resuscitates tw o magi;
the scene is supposed
to b e taking place at
th e tim e o f
C on stan tin e, b u t the
F o ru m is already in
ru in s ...T h e saint
perform s his m iracles
am idst the rem ains o f
th e ancient city, u n d e r
th e eyes o f the
E m p ero r C o n stan tin e
su rro u n d e d by his
re tin u e .T h is fresco
contrasts th e re d -b rick
illustrates the profound contradiction em bedded in the relationship buildings o f C hristian
R o m e to the w h ite
betw een m edieval culture and antiquity. W ith o u t ancient culture m arble o f th e ancient
there w o u ld be no C hristian culture; at the same tim e C hristian city.
culture m ust be form ed upon choice, an awkward separation from

the G raeco -R o m an heritage. Perhaps the contem plation o f statues is
as dangerous as reading evil books: Foulcoie was forced to struggle
against his ow n taste for antiquity.
To th e p o p u latio n at large and especially to the peasants, the
observant cleric was seen as a scholar capable o f in terp retin g and
occasionally dating an object plucked from the soil; he was a m an o f
no small ability. H e could draw upon oral tradition and relate this to
finds — in short, deal w ith sources b o th direct and indirect. Foul-
co ie’s very individual style lends a special dim ension to his testi
mony, b u t he was n o t alone. At the same tim e Anselm o f Havelberg
described w ith precision the R o m a n enclosure at R eim s, and the
C hronicles o f T o u rn a i told o f ancient cem eteries in the tow n com pa
rable w ith those o f Laon and R eim s. These texts, like those o f G uib-
ert de N o g en t or M atthew Paris, reveal a sensitivity to antiquities
and a naive but dogged taste for archaeology. As for Suger, the illus
trious abbot o f Saint-D enis, he dream ed o f excavating in R o m e to
en rich his abbey.
T h e taste for antiquity tu rn e d the heads o f ch u rch m en in no
small measure, and for the good o f their consciences they invented a
special prayer to christianise the pagan vessels found in excavations:
B enedicto super vasa reperta in locis a n tiq u is [ . . . ] , deign so to cleanse
101
these vases fabricated by the art o f the Gentiles, that they may be
used by the believers in peace and tranquillity.62 From the m om ent
o f th eir en try into the daily canon, the ancient pots occupied a
defined and accepted place w ith in hum an consciousness. Walls, for
tifications, treasures, works o f art and hum ble funerary offerings: the
m aterial remains o f ancient times revealed themselves everyw here to
the eyes o f those curious enough to observe them . Lawyers or sur
veyors, abbots or princes, even the simple
peasant w ith his plough — no one could
avoid the sense o f anxiety attendant u p o n
confrontation w ith the invisible but real dis
tance w h ich the past assumed. T h e patient
activity o f the m ost well inform ed m en led
th em to regard m onum ents, objects, even
fugitive traces, as so m any intelligible signs, at
least partially explicable. As Jean A dhem ar
p ointed out:
For fiv e h u n d red years, fr o m the eighth to the
tw elfth century, there were m o n ks, clerks a n d kin g s
w ho d id n o t h esitate to say a n d to sh o w th a t th ey
were struck by the g ra n d eu r a n d b ea u ty o f m o n u
m ents, sta tu es a n d all the w orks o f the artists o f
classical a n tiq u ity ,63
T he prayer for ancient vessels d e m o n
strates that the interest in ancient rem ains
R e liq u ary statue, was no t lim ited to art but extended to everything w hich the earth
preserved in the
m ight reveal. T he m en o f the M iddle Ages, w ho during M erovin
c h u rc h o fS a in te -F o y
at C o n q u e s .T h e statue gian times destroyed ancient ruins, now learned to dom esticate,
is m ade o f a w o o d e n
utilise and naturalise them , finding the means to incorporate them
core covered w ith
gold le a f.T h e head w ith in the fram ew ork o f their lives. Salvatore Settis showed how, in
dates to th e fo u rth
M odena, in Pisa and even Arles, the construction o f religious m o n u
cen tu ry an d represents
a R o m a n em peror. Its m ents in the eleventh and tw elfth centuries inserted themselves into
place in this elev en th - an artistic vision essentially dependent upon the R o m an m odel. It
c e n tu ry R o m a n esq u e
c h u rc h u n d erlin es th e was no longer enough to clear an area and pick up the pieces, the
atte n tio n given to the aim was to make use o f any architectural or o ther artistic remains.
rem ains o f th e past.
T h e em peror F rederick II is a perfect exam ple o f the kind o f
m edieval p rince w ho strove by any m eans available to establish co n
tin u ity b etw een the ancient and the m edieval worlds. H e rep re
sented him self as the successor, n o t o f the em perors, bu t o f the
founder o f the Em pire himself: Augustus. H e created a gold coinage,
102
I — AN T IQ U E AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
the augustales, on w hich he is depicted

bearing all the attributes o f a Caesar;
in C apua he built a trium phal arch in
the R o m a n style; he was a passionate
co llecto r o f any ancient object he
could find. In his tow n o f Augusta in
Sicily he even com m issioned an agent
charged w ith the excavation o f ‘the
places w here the m axim um num ber o f
finds are to be expected’.64
R istoro d ’Arezzo, a tw elfth-century
author, gives a fine exam ple o f how
th e m en o f the M iddle Ages were
excited by R o m an pots:
I could obta in o f these vessels, a sm a ll
bow ! decorated in re lie f w ith such natural
a n d su b tle th in g s th a t th e exp erts, w h en
th e y sa w it, cried aloud, lost their com po
sure a n d behaved like idiots — as for those T h e sculptured m o tif 011 a capital in the fo rm e r abbey o f
M oissac (eleventh-tw elfth century) is directly inspired by a
w ho k n e w n o th in g o f th em , th e y w a n ted to
R o m a n m o tit that appears o n th e u p p e r p a rt o f the C o rto n a
break it a n d throw it aw ay.b5 Sarcophagus. In the fifteenth c en tu ry this sam e sarcophagus
depictin g the battle betw een the C entaurs and the Lapiths
(In fact, Arezzo was one o f the m ost
inspired D onatello and Brunelleschi.
famous o f the w orkshops w hich p ro
d u ced the glossy red ware called terra sig illa ta .) T h e adm iration
w h ich R is to ro ’s contem poraries had for A retine vessels is a fair
m atch for that o f Caesar’s soldiers for the C orinthian pots. R o b erto
Weiss detects here a shift in taste, an em otional reaction to art w hich
contrasts w ith the m ore solem n approach o f previous centuries. We
shall see how the th irte e n th -c e n tu ry sensitivity to ancient art
already suggests the stirrings o f the Renaissance sensibility.
103
THE FORERUNNERS OF T H E RENAISSANCE

CONFRONT THE NEGLECT OF
THINGS ANCIENT
N o r th e r n E u r o p e a n d th e w h o le s a le d e s tr u c tio n o f R o m a n
m o n u m e n t s . T h e I t a l i a n p r e c u r s o r s : P e t r a r c h a n d B o c c a c c io
It is tem pting to link the testim ony o f R istoro d ’Arezzo to a m ajor

event in the history o f Italian art: the com pletion o f N icola Pisano’s
baptistry in the cathedral o f Pisa in 1260. T he w ork itself contains
num erous details w hich illustrate a particular taste. T h e V irgin is
depicted in the same way as Phaedra on ancient sarcophagi, and the
soldiers are dressed as legionaries rather than m en o f the th irteen th
century. C hrist and his com panions are show n in the Early C hristian
fashion, w ith o u t haloes. It is, in short, a w ork w hich uses ancient art
as a creative m odel. T h e trem or w hich ran through art and literature
in Italy at this tim e contrasts w ith the situation observed in France
by som eone as know ledgeable and well inform ed as Jean Adhem ar:
T h e en th u sia sm f o r ancient things is cooling. T h e chroniclers are ceasing to
celebrate the R o m a n m o n u m e n ts a n d ancient sculptures in their tow ns. T h e
collectors have g iv e n up the h u n t for a n tiq u e w orks o f art, the artists are
neglecting th e m arble bas-reliefs a n d th e consular d ip ty c h s [...]■ A t the
beginning o f the th irteen th century the classicists have disappeared, classical
stu d ies have all b u t va n ish ed fr o m the m on a stic a n d abbey schools, a n d the
interest o f the clerks has been su b d u e d in the fa ce o f the exigencies o f a more
ardent f a i t h .66
W hile Italy was caught up in a progressive m ovem ent to return to
antiquity, the o th er E uropean nations seem ed to be relaxing their
interest in the G raeco-R om an past. T here were reasons for this para
dox; the eleventh and tw elfth centuries saw the final integration o f
the barbarian invaders into classical history. T h e English and the
Franks w ere asserting their Trojan origins, and certain docum ents
added to these accounts an elem ent o f Jewish history. In Glaston
bury in 1184, after the fire w hich destroyed their abbey, the m onks
n o t only pro d u ced the bodies o f A rth u r and G uinevere, but also
proclaim ed that St Joseph o f A rim athea came to G lastonbury in AD
63 and was buried there. So G lastonbury glowed w ith the fire o f a
double legend in w hich m edieval epic was crossed w ith the history
o f the C hurch. Such historical short circuits had their consequences;
chronological confusion led the people and part o f the clergy to a
104
very different reading o f the landscape from the m odel w hich p er
sisted from C arolingian times. T he fathers o f the C hurch were no
longer called upon to explain the surrounding w orld and the ruins
strew n u p o n it. Besides, these no longer possessed the freshness or
the trium phal air w hich they had in M erovingian times. W ith the
passage o f time, the R om ans were confused w ith C harlem agne and
the G ra eco -R o m a n deities w ith the Islamic dem ons o f m edieval
epic. M instrels and troubadours unconsciously co n trib u ted to this
m odification o f the im age o f the past. Theatres, am phitheatres and
tem ples becam e towers o f R oland, palaces o f Pepin le Bref, gates o f
G anelon. In the m iddle o f the th irteen th century all ruins were by
definition Saracen: the crusades had replaced the G erm anic inva
sions in popular im agination, and Apollo becam e a familiar spirit o f
M o ham m ed. This was the tim e w h en the d estruction o f R o m an
m onum ents through urban grow th attained dim ensions w hich were
never again to be repeated. From then on, the chronicles record
large-scale d em o litio n o f the am phitheatre at Trier, the walls o f
Poitiers, the am phitheatres o f N im es and Le M ans. H ere was a diffi
cult and som etim es fatal trial for antiquities. T h e urban and rural
landscapes were profoundly altered, and so, in consequence, was the
concept o f regional history.
N o rth e rn and C entral E urope tu rn ed their backs for a tim e upon
the ancient past, whilst the m en o f the South — o f A vignon, R o m e
and some Italian tow ns — to o k up the torch. In 1283 the Paduan
ju d g e Lovato Lovati interpreted the discovery in the city o f a skele
to n o f gigantic dim ensions as the remains o f the legendary founder,
A n ten o r.67 T h e event w ould have been o f little im portance had it
n o t been followed by a resurgence o f interest in ancient R o m e. In
fact it was n o t so m uch the history o f R o m e proper w hich m at
tered, as the regional history o f each o f the towns w hich, in Italy,
could claim a certain notoriety. This is b etter seen, perhaps, in the
context o f a second fortuitous discovery forty years later in the same
city o f Padua, one w hich attracted the attention o f the learned. A
funerary inscription revealed the nam e o f Titus Livius, and at once
the scholars were thrilled at the idea o f having to u ch ed w ith their
ow n hands the tom bstone o f the celebrated historian. It little m at
tered that this was the tom b o f a simple freedm an w ho had nothing
to do w ith his great nam esake. T he idea had been im planted in
scholarly circles that the collection and decipherm ent o f inscriptions
was a valid historical pursuit.
105
O pposite: C ru c ifix io n In Padua, and soon Verona, learned m en threw themselves into
and N a tiv ity scenes,
the w ritin g o f works on R o m an history. O f course these were only
details from th e p u lp it
in the B aptistery at com pilations, but som etim es they contain unexpected curiosities. A
Pisa, by N ico la Pisano,
m anuscript o f the learned Veronese G iovanni M ansonario has in the
1259. Inspired by
classical R o m a n art, m argin, alongside illustrations o f R o m an coins, the first know n plan
N icola Pisano created
o f a R o m a n circus in the history o f archaeology.68 This specifically
a n e w typ e o f
c o m positio n w ith Italian interest in ancient history, w hich was at the same tim e local
his reliefs, using
history, found its m aster and its guide in Petrarch, the m ost cele
k now ledg e as an
in stru m e n t of brated o f the editors o f the works o f Livy and Cicero. It was his
sculptural art: th e
predilection for the ruins o f R o m e w hich m arked the rediscovery o f
P haedra o f B eatrice de
L orraine s sarcophagus that city. In Petrarch’s view the capital o f the ancient w orld was a
is transform ed into
site w hich had to be visited, and w ith the ancient authors to hand.
N icola Pisano’s
M adonna. This was the decisive step w hich separated the m edieval from the
R enaissance attitude. To read the
urban landscape m eant also to read
the ancient authors; it was n o t
enough to w ander blindly am ong
various m irabilia o f the pilgrim s.
R o m e m ust be p u t in perspective;
n o t ju st the m edieval city traversed
by P etrarch, b u t the im perial city
w hich was set apart from the
m edieval one by tim e ’s destructive
agency. It was necessary to adm it to
A bove: A ntique the break w hich separated the present from the past, and to treat
sarcophagus d ep ictin g
antiquity as an historical object. Sites should be studied by visiting
th e story o f Phaedra
and H ipp o ly tu s.T h is and describing them , by m aking full use o f the available inscriptions
sarcophagus was
and coinage. T he age o f Petrarch was also the age o f a new approach
in c o rp o ra te d in to
the extern al o rn a m e n t to num ism atics —no longer the collection o f medals, but a thorough
of Pisa C athedral
interpretation o f coinage.
w h e n B eatrice de
L orraine was b u rie d Politics in the T hucydidean sense was also to play a part in the
there in 1070. rediscovery o f antiquity. Cola di R ienzo, in his desire to recreate an
independent R o m e, w ent even further than Petrarch. In 1346, the
R o m a n dictator rediscovered Vespasian’s L e x de Im perio at St Jo h n
Lateran. H e deciphered it straightaway, and so established the superi
ority o f the people over the em perors. In consequence the resound
ing appeal for the political independence o f R o m e was posted on
the church wall, and on 20 M ay 1347 C ola organised an event — a
tru e political m eeting — at w h ich he read the text aloud before
adding his com m entary, the ten o r o f w hich can be im agined.
106
10 7
T h e story o f L aocoon, •v A;v:riwiM=fhvcrwt . pm» tertfo*.- fsnfet

from a fo u rte e n th -
one lifijjje finiYiti? m tm cnlk nehtnraeteigR.
cen tu ry m anuscript.
W h a t co u ld b e m o re
jf it GmitB* fpumanflr file tawc* arm ttJ-ffcw*,
m ov in g th an th e story ■;Vw.*«5<9 OngjwK «*!**••.•
o f th e T rojan p riest Tfutieiwnfr lingm* uibtiwfi'&nSera>
L aocoon , w h o , as he t«ft» $<*«§*«&• \Iti agmme -mrto/
sacrificed an ox to
Poseidon, saw tw o
serpents em erge from
th e sea to attack his
children? T h e
illu m in ato r has
separated th e im age
in to th re e scenes w h ic h
seem alm ost discrete:
the serpents; the
sacrifice; th e children.
Such happenings proved to the people o f R o m e that stones could

indeed speak, if interrogated. Soon afterwards, in the A ngevin court
o f Naples, an o th er great voice as pow erful as P etrarch’s w ould be
raised in favour o f a retu rn to classical antiquity: that o f Boccaccio.
His interest in epigraphy, and especially his know ledge o f G reek,
rendered him even m ore than Petrarch a fo rerunner o f the R enais
sance.69 B occaccio’s c o n trib u tio n 70 was his critical appraisal o f the
m onum ents and his rejection o f folk-tales as a means o f identifying
them —victims as they were o f neglect and destruction, as m uch as
o f the un d irected enthusiasm o f m edieval scholars. P etrarch and
B occaccio favoured a critical approach to docum ents w hich sig
nalled the beginning o f a new era. A Florentine doctor, G iovanni
D ondi, was one o f the boldest o f the Italian innovators. C om bining
an interest in docum ents w ith precise description based u p o n
survey, he was probably th e first o f the scholar-travellers o f the
R enaissance. H e was a disciple of, and an expert on, the R o m an
architect V itruvius, and attem pted to w rite an architectural descrip
T h e fo u n d a tio n o f th e tion o f the m onum ents he visited, com paring them to the V itruvian
to w n o f A ugsburg, m odel.71
plate fro m th e Chronicle
o f Augsburg by the
T he Italian scholars o f the fo u rteen th and fifteenth centuries fol
G e rm a n Flum anist low ed the path o f H um anism in preparing for a return to classical
Sigism und M eisterlin,
1522 e d itio n .T h is
antiquity — one n o t satisfied w ith a purely literary experience, or
im age, like th e tw o o n even w ith the rediscovery o f certain art forms. T hey laid dow n the
th e follo w in g page,
illustrates episodes from
foundations o f a historiography based u p o n a th eo ry o f knowledge:
M eisterlin ’s critical assessment o f sources, that is to say the establishm ent o f
c om pilatio n : in this
ancient texts, but also the systematic com parison o f m o n u m en t and
scene p rim itiv e p eople
in h a b it caves an d huts. text. T hey thus rediscovered the Varronian necessity for an order o f
108
I - A N T IQ U E AND MEDIEVAL
$)ou t>er £rba vcmgle r rtat IHugfpurg

ch XDktocmcn($ttt$ft
. * wicbic S4>wrtbcn bifc p a t gcpawm bottbmib poubeu (fatgdcgonbau b«$
vixDecflECapiccl bes aubem b»d;e/tmb l>ic t>«cfctbrt<s<mbec bucfe4».»c.
Cimrtd)ba(mbtfUif5/onbcd tbntcfou 23rtbiloiri b<W

tmg/cfi bet' fp:<td> m-enbtfig bic gcfd)Icd?t/»«b bye fyd>
foyltcti/babcfflp flmyct!icbs«mgcgcttt/dbctbtet>obf
fun n oc bcr gfiiflntwj âp b er gepotc wamit/bicm;
tiicncwb$btut<ul Wrwclc/bjgc«Mitti(ti£iii'opa/grt0
rfi tibct rtl »on bcu fdbcit gebey Iteu /1 fi <111(5gcfdj<iybcii
citi vold1/b}brtgcijrttw(?ib0atoul/b?iflbicfcb«fpfc<»
btc mS jit bi'ferjfye wriw ift 0d;w aio|J/aba' in tditfd)
T H E D I S C O V E R Y OF T H E P AST
an tiq u aria n know ledge. Epigraphy, num ism atics and historical
topography were progressively added to the study o f texts. C yriac o f
A ncona is the epitom e o f this type o f antiquary. H e was b o rn in
1391 and died in 1454, the product p a r exccllence o f an Italian m er
chant bourgeoisie thirsty for know ledge. From 1423 until his death
C yriac did not cease to visit m ost o f the archaeological sites o f the
M editerranean region, feverishly copying inscriptions and drawing
m onum ents. As m uch at ease w ith the em perors o f B yzantium as
w ith the Sultan M eh m et II, w hose secretary he was, this man
broadly proclaim ed his H um anist archaeology by dint o f his sense o f
T h e w orship o f the
goddess Cisa, plates
from the Chronicle o f
Augsburg by Sigism und
M eisterlin. E xtracted
from tw o different
editions, these images
show how, over several
decades, th e vision o f
prim itive h u m an ity
changed. T h e 1457
im age shows th e
goddess in a loggia;
th a t o f 1522
emphasises th e urban
c o n te x t and the
w o o d en city walls.
reality and his mission to describe landscapes and buildings w ith the
m axim um precision. Q u ite apart from the extraordinary story o f his
life, he asserted h im self w ith a radically new concept w hich he
brought to the analysis o f architectural remains. H e was one o f the
first since Varro to question the veracity o f sources. M onum ents,
coins and inscriptions were the sigilla histo ria ru m , the ‘seals o f his
to ry ’ w hich verify in the same way that an epistolary docum ent is
verified. If the m onum ents possess a fid es (truth) and a noticia
(know ledge) greater than th at o f the texts, th e n here trad itio n is
challenged — the accepted practice is subjected to the merciless
agency o f criticism.
G erm any, too, was to u ch ed by the new wave o f historical and
antiquarian criticism em anating from Italy. Living at the same tim e
/W
as Cyriac o f Ancona, the G erm an scholar Sigism und

M eisterlin devoted his studies to the historical o ri
gins o f G erm an towns. His w ork was caught up in
the great m ovem ent o f affirm ation am ong the free
cities o f the H oly R o m an Em pire w hich sought to
resist pressure from the powerful feudatories o f the
Em pire. M eisterlin’s C hronicle o f A u g sb u rg was one
o f the first works o f local history to make room for
the study o f Latin inscriptions and antiquities. His
m anuscript, illustrated by a famous illum inator o f
the day, H e k to r M iilich, attracts our attention w ith
one o f the very first portrayals o f cave dwellers.
P ro o f indeed that the desire for know ledge o f the
past could free itself from the very restricted limits
o f G ra e c o -R o m a n history. A frie n d o f A eneas
Silvius (Enea Silvio d e ’P iccolom ini and the future
Pope Pius II), M eisterlin w ent to Italy in search o f
direct contact w ith antiquity. H e was the first in a
long line o f scholars to apply the m ethods o f Italian
H um anism to the history o f his ow n country.
However, this p erio d in the history o f antiqui
ties was ultim ately shipwrecked. W h e th e r an acci
dent o f scholarship, or ju st historical bad luck, the
greater part o f C y ria c ’s w ork was lost, ju st like
Varro’s before him. We do have a great many do cu
m ents and his corpus o f Latin inscriptions to give
us an idea o f his w ork. H ow ever, facts are stub
born: three works central to our understanding o f the past are now B occaccio (1313—75)
presenting his w ork to
dispersed, scattered or quite destroyed — works by Varro, C yriac o f
J o h n o f N aples; below,
A ncona and, as we shall see, Peiresc. T here was no curse upon anti Petrarch (Boccaccio's
alter ego) is show n
quarian studies; it was tim e itself w hich caused the eating away and
wrritin g at his desk;
ultim ate destruction o f these texts. fifteen th -cen tu ry
From the fa r-o ff philosophers o f Ionia to the scholars o f the m anuscript. True
theoreticians o f the
Renaissance, from H erodotus to C yriac o f A ncona, a subtle thread know ledge o f th e past,
runs, linking the antiquarians am ong them . For H erodotus, as for all these tw o figures o f
the fo u rtee n th
the Greeks, the Trojan Wars form ed the point o f departure for all c en tu ry a n n o u n ce
history. Faced w ith the ruins o f Ilium , M eh m et II, co n q u ero r o f them selves as the
forerunners o f the
C onstantinople, could no t resist giving his ow n history lesson. T he R enaissance.
G reek historian K ritoboulos o f Imbros records:
O nce arrived at Iliu m , the su lta n view ed the ruins o f the ancient city o f
li t
T h e discovery o f th e treasures, im ages fro m the C onsolation o f Philosophy by B oethius (4 80-524),

fifte e n th -c e n tu ry F ren ch m anuscripts. T h e burial and discovery o f a treasure in th e e arth becam e
th e th e m e fo r m o ra l fables. O p p o site, in a m an u scrip t o f 1477, P hilosophy show s B oethius the
spectacle o f ill-g o tte n riches em b o d ie d by a m agistrate w ith treasures spread o u t at his feet; to the
b o tto m rig h t a m a n digs a h o le in th e g ro u n d . A bove is a m in iatu re from a c o n te m p o ra ry
m an u scrip t by th e sam e illu m in ato r. P h ilo so phy and B o eth iu s occupy th e m ain p a rt o f th e im age;
b e lo w th e m a peasant has laid d o w n th e h o e h e has used for digging and takes in b o th hands a
vase full o f g o ld coins. Tw o o th e r vases are seen at th e edge o f th e pit. T his is an allegory o f
chance: I f the peasant had not turned over the earth in his fie ld , i f the owner had not placed his treasure
there, the gold w ould not have been discovered.
112
113
Troy, its extent, its p osition , and the other advantages o f the land, its
favou rable siting with regard to the sea and to the land mass. T hen he visited
the tombs o f the heroes (I mean Achilles, A ja x and the others); he glorified
them, praising their renown, their exploits, and their fortune in having the
p oet H om er to celebrate them. T hen, it is said, he pronounced these words
w hile nodding his head, ‘It was reserved to m e by G o d to avenge this city
and its people, I have tam ed their enemies, ravaged their cities, and m ade
prey o f their riches. In truth it was the G reeks, the M acedonians, the T h es
salians and the Peloponnesians who ravaged this city
in ancient times, and their descendants after so many
years have p a id to me the debt incurred by their
' impious excesses at that time, and often afterwards,
against us, the p eo p le o f A sia .’ 72
Any personal contribution by the sultan to
this history lesson cannot be guaranteed. H ow
ever, a man with w hom Cyriac o f Ancona was
on familiar term s, even, it is said, discussing
Greek and Latin authors with him, must have
had some curiosity about the nascent Human
ism. Moreover, his great enemy, Aeneas Silvius,
was invited by the H oly R o m an Em peror to
harangue the German princes who had gath
ered at Frankfurt to deliberate the fall o f
Byzantium. In front o f a dumbfounded audi
ence, he appealed to the martial superiority o f
~''T j M t iv im
the Germ anic peoples:
You are great, you are warlike, you are powerful,
M ercury, in a drawing you are fortu n ate, you are the G erm ans chosen by G od, who has allow ed
by C y ria c o f A n co n a,
you to extend your frontiers and who has given to you, above all mortal
m id -fifteen th century.
A traveller thirsty for men, the honour o f facing the might o f R om e. Brave heirs o f pow erful ances
archaeological
tors, rem ember — keep before you the high deeds o f the Ancients, see how
know ledge, C y riac o f
A n co n a (1 3 9 1 -1 4 5 4 ) many times your fathers crossed the A lps to Italy with mighty armies.73
co p ied and drew all
Strong in his knowledge o f Latin tradition on the Germ anic peo
th e antiquities he
co u ld see. T h e R o m a n ples, Piccolom ini was able to revive, for the first time, a Germany o f
g od M e rcu ry was the the past forgotten by medieval scholars. It took an Italian to remind
p ro te cto r o f m erchants
and travellers. them that they were Germans and not Teutons, as they called them
selves.74 In describing to them their glorious military past he revived
the m em ory o f the legions o f Varus m ourned by Augustus, and he
laid the foundations upon w hich the ancient history o f Germany
was built — thanks to the Italian rediscovery ofTacitus. In 1458 he
114
I — ANTIQUE AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES
T h e ruins o f Troy,
sketch from a
JJutinelI
m anuscript by
C risto foro
B u o n d elm o n ti,
fifteen th century.
A F loren tin e cleric,
B u o n d e lm o n ti was
o n e o f th e m ost
S* adventurous
fccoua laigiVw fajuMf a fy flit a ftWOTf■±a,mJ.yu>x U ifu» rt** antiquaries o f the
«xrf|cf now fttttfn tapto»ajeccifot;mimtax('Uo\*'T«‘Czt\
pttfir iLieSiia\kftmoow ^f,acm.stx$>$« fifteen th cen tury: for
ifatots jUjiixth I'ctj^tiuettu.'cc^t: nMn^figMfacgfus
,tfm i Iwiternu ipkfei f.ifualtj i idle fuout fhrruufim i r. timw
six teen years he
3
I<t Wowf. fctij tt«u fiat ret* fawft eti!r>i4<ifrut « « « ,-t ^nMU
travelled throughou t
mult* mi a l/lnln ut xanif'jt;•vnufAnurzitoa tntuts
Yu jxauili (achfone tttoto pcrtfenW.fantvlufitii nuntfcfute tnuliu the G reek islands,
cemciit- j a jfU cU*, v u frota raiuci"/t a lfafu fim ehs Lu oefnr*
c^ jttOina » : « "Xnwru*- fSmwt ~ » i o oinitifu A k 4 ccrfirf illustrating his
at'liilct-. n ww AjKcrais njacUmtht nicrraiut- « • «*“»
>.uiVWx.it-alWs cecaifrtio«eofn/V:fI W a f W t * atefe m anuscripts w ith
-ty*Cfr maps and sketches o f
JicUfftiS. fedtrtiLwrfaoatafTB v«J pinin * o t b mi-*
cox«s >"iow « omcums eu tm uccsfct -i »*<nvrafici ol'irwji.ir the m ost notable sites.
tile itqfths (cn«nitj rui'vttugs et n MmifK fuTtttr a<^ 'w*«A»
££«Mt
tgo men «cq: m a t Minffet- Aur at “ •'Vi •« fc
Jnrhl alitrm cape -i -tct+u a1i i
developed this them e more widely, in response to criticism o f the

Germans against R o m e . A new discourse appeared, rich in refer
ences to Tacitus and honoured w ith the same title: P icco lo m in i’s
G erm ania was published in Leipzig in 1496, and was to take its place
alongside that o f Tacitus in the minds o f the German Humanists,
endowed as they were with a burning curiosity. From one end o f
the M editerranean to the other, history becam e an instrument o f
politics. T h e sultan, according to Kritoboulos, wished to be the heir
o f the Trojans, as the em peror wished to be the successor o f the
ancient Germans. B ut for Piccolom ini the Turks were not Trojans,
those who had ju st burned Constantinople were not merely ene
mies o f the faith, but enemies o f belles-lettres:
W liat m isfortune; how many cities once pow erful in reputation and deed
are now destroyed. T he sites o f Thebes, A thens, M ycenae, Larissa, L acedae-
monia, the city o f C orinth, and other fa m ou s cities — i f you seek their walls,
you will fin d only ruins [ .. .] . A n d now that the Turks are victors and p o s
sess all that was G reek, I fe a r that all the G reek literature will be destroyed.
A n d I do not think, as many do, that the Turks are o f A siatic origin, sons o f
Teucer [Teucer was the son o f the river Scamander; he was the first
king o f the Troad, from w hom the Rom ans were descended], and
that they do not hate letters. T hey are fro m the race o f Scythians, separated
fro m the Barbarian centre, who according to A ristotle inhabit the Pyrrhic
115
B ern ard in o di B e tto , called ‘II P in tu ricc h io ’, Piccolomini Setting Out fo r the Council o f Basle
at Portovenere. T h e P ic co lo m in i Library o f Siena Cathedral was bu ilt in 1 4 9 2 by Fran cesco
Todesch in i P ic co lo m in i, A rchbishop o f Sien a, to h o n o u r the m em o ry o f his m aternal un cle
Aeneas Silvius (Pope Pius II ) .T h e frescos relating to Pius II w ere n o t finished un til 1 5 0 7 ,
after th e death o f th e archbishop in 1 5 0 3 .
A bove: Aeneas Silvius is show n setting o u t fo r th e C o u n cil o f Basle in 1 4 3 2 as secretary to

th e B ish o p o f Ferm o, Cardinal D o m e n ico C a p ra n ica .T h e procession nears the Tuscan p o rt
o f Portovenere. Aeneas Silvius, at th e cen tre o n a w h ite horse, turns round; the Cardinal is
in profile o n a bay horse p receded by a halberdier and squires.
O pp osite: Pius I I Preaches the Crusade at Ancona. A t A n co n a in 1 4 6 4 Pius II an n ou nced th e Crusade

against th e Turks: on 18 Ju n e the Pope, already ill, w ent to A n co n a to w ait fo r th e fleet o f th e D o g e
C risto fo ro M o ro . H e was to die in th e sam e to w n on 15 August. T h e Pope is carried o n a chair
surrounded by num erous political figures o f the tim e. A m o n g th em are T h o m a s Palaeologus, despot
o f M o rea, bearded and dressed in a blu e outfit w ith a large hat, and the D o g e kn eelin g; to th e right
is Hassan Z accaria, fo rm er P rin ce o f Sam os, w earin g a turban and a g reen outfit, also kneeling.
B e h in d th e latter, facin g the view er, stands C alapino B ajazet, called ‘th e little T u rk ’, pretender
to th e O tto m a n throne. In th e backgroun d is the city o f A n co n a w ith T rajan ’s Arch.
116
THE DISCOVERY OF T H E P A ST
m ountains near the northern ocean: fo u l and in fa

mous peop le, fornicators given to all kinds o f evil
omimbi uonc*q3fc;moiHl>icroJumti*a!iiqi *W
O uu-fw rnuiobioqiiannw cci-Iileim ’nicqr \ practices.75
itmitoiurojfjp cirmn om&rjiacfliieinofVc
1w L l M 14.1*11.1tyUt(
Piccolom ini had more success with scholars
vlin pnm fj otnm r.iftfftn i^ “ )
ffcirnou c.rpra. ui ccrriK»',rtr’'fnC than w ith princes. His calls to the crusades
Vein nun rt BPuiiaMchiobnr
'K tttuO V ii
ie & cncc .intciiojiqj qccucm were to remain useless, and he died in Ancona
u*6$uxx ih uur ixifpmi/ ccquu fiuT
tw&vtt*-eewfe;
■iiactitaSRsr ivtKTCTfl.- ixtrncrrmpautro without embarking upon his long-vowed cru
iac-h ew sc*
Its (YiraTO omc ins te w , ■$gj>
W*s>uwn<V
jdV iiiS.iw htnuirc.j C ui “” -"H sade. However, the seed w hich he sowed in
bimtsnitciuuiiwurcuoic
'it*di grant
,t*WShj ^nmmmnmditcncnnuq Germ an scholarship would bear much fruit.
grta& nai fcdinonc cvp-ipbLujonu
pnmct-fcttP crrtiift rare M aximilian I, the last medieval knight and the
pbiicmcncjp m>um -imif
ro tfn-luHrucinntminri
mfi nuH0.Rjjunaflml?n.Tfi^
first Humanist emperor, must have been an
J^gnnctoqj quunriiuie
.ilfvpqj incotcUfrpmrioi'e admirer o f his: at the time o f the D iet o f Worms
:nca»nounceq? caemmif
• m r.iR ccm tjuc j'm o c<ncf in 1496 he excavated the tomb o f Siegfried at
liinrloriiitiJiD uiicrjf.'piô
pji nnx.ntn.-mo nomc <f.gcns i W orms. Less fortunate than the monks o f Glas
iminfj ucuai 4}pr(un4]eiiciii
WiittUj cUixiwno.pnigwm fco tonbury, he found only water.
Jionu w u rotim jmn.i dtternbits
'fijftfcxpino m mafooitu ucmflc. i
. mxx mrtnii.un4irntfr fctmruni.
Jiw ftc u a c u m jv U u m n tfjp n tm cc
/nmfft. rii-.ucti-mclntoiioim-,,, 1,
AwcsTvilitromnrtrijmujabfmnMS, t',’L
'«! ?;'«IMSjpafeaSi Uv cnt>jc uicbil p’c^m u crnauro Hi
VOiCS r K' ctc^nmp*rvim a-.igiw.ijjriefrl.inM
it.r .ibojijnntfemm a mik&tiaa jv
t&mj&n '^rcciKannnMyiicihmim.uiiuw tvnrte-
•<uiu
f*I;tl«n!On*ftjifi 4
, tr]! .igiw amamrtcduplrr crmcc ftmvi
>tu i- :ih In pclw iiirnun utrmimpicte innate
a.si«i&0< fft- •t Jrnnx.iffiuir.Kt unimfr fiadminiJi n cm
■*§!*wffwitr(B«ii nim nfcrjnrp coinhnrrer p n a f rlûe.nic .opirH
itpfrciTlfR’MffinnnnirpmoJcoduceqziib .ccmin.
ianng< i i*® ••fn.mnncucuiflc.ipcollcqiiinJjjtjTnnfBifr
............ l **'IUW H
,'£ZZ2 ■ 4
' — f’ftctiwino4tPiic*JiwHraiii.i0iiimutnc T h e Fall ofT roy,
mnn-[(if£:^îhiii:i.!nriicnr»ti!intiiriiisc
...... nouH®cc/riiirtHic.iiiiFiiiinn.mtl.nrc rr Italian m anuscript o f
ucttm^crmira garter
th e early fou rteen th
„ wncoittvtrrr m-bticrfit)it[viTiiobttinuc
century, o n c e in the
.ougo 1V<
possession o f Petrarch.
118
1 R e in e r 1 9 8 5 , p. 3, lines 2 6 —46. Sim a Q ia n , translated by B u rto n W atson,

2 H ee re n -D ie k h o fF 1 9 8 1 , p. 2 2 2 . 2 vols, N ew Y ork, 1 9 7 1 , vol. 2 , p. 39.
3 H erodotus, The Histories, 1,1, trans. 3 0 Shaugnessy 199 1 .
G . R aw lin son , L o n d o n , 1 9 92. 31 T h ie rry 199 3 .
4 Pausanias, Il.x v i, trans. P. Levi, 3 2 O w en 1 9 8 6 , pp. 8 0 —98.
H arm on dsw orth , 1 9 84. 3 3 Ibid., pp. 8 6 —7.
5 Pausanias, IIL iii, trans. P. Levi, 3 4 R u d o lp h 1 9 6 2 —3 , p. 175.
H arm ondsw orth, 1 9 84. 35 Ibid., p. 170.
6 T hu cydides, 1,10, trans. R . W arner, 3 6 B o u rd ier 1 9 9 3 , p. 85.
H arm ondsw orth, 1 9 72. 37 K en d rick 1 9 5 0 , p. 1.
7 T hu cydides, 1,1, trans. R . W arner, 3 8 R o d o c a n a ch i 1 9 1 4 , p. 17.
H arm ondsw orth, 1972. 3 9 Ibid., p. 18.
8 See p. 26 4 0 The Letters o f Cassiodorus, IV, 3 4 , trans.
9 Snodgrass 1987. T. H od gk in , L on don , 1 886.
10 Plutarch, Life ofTheseus, 3 6 , C h icago, 1990. 41 Ph otius, Letters n o .8 t.
11 H erod otu s, The Histories, I, trans. 4 2 G reg o ry o fT o u rs, History o f the
G . R aw lin so n , L o n d o n , 1 9 92. Franks,V, 14.
12 Plutarch, Moralia, 5 7 7 —7 8 , C am b., M ass., 4 3 Patrologie Latine , L X X V I I , 1 20.
1959. 4 4 Z appert 1 8 5 0 , p. 7 5 9 .
13 H erod otu s, The Histories,V, trans. 45 Ibid. p. 7 8 8 .
G . R aw lin so n , L on don , 1 9 92. 4 6 L c Gall 1 9 7 3 , p. 140.
14 Pausanias I.xxiv, trans. P. Levi, 47 Ibid.
H arm ondsw orth, 1 9 84. 4 8 A bram ow icz 1 9 8 3 , pp. 1 7 - 1 8 .
15 Tacitus, Annalcs , X V I , 1—3 , C h icag o, 19 9 0 . 4 9 A dhem ar 1 9 3 7 , p. 79.
16 Plato, Hippias Major, 2 8 5 e , trans. 5 0 Ib id ., p. 18.
P.W ood ruff, O x fo rd , 1982. 51 Ibid., p. 94.
17 M o m ig lian o 1 9 8 3 , p. 24 7 . 52 M o rte t 1 9 1 1 ,1 .
18 C icero , The Academics o f Cicero, I.iii, trans. 53 Ib id ., I, pp. 5 3 —4.
J. R e id , L o n d on , 1880. 5 4 Ib id ., I, pp. 2 8 0 - 8 1 .
19 St Augustine, City o f God, V I, 3, trans. 55 Ib id ., I, p. 181.
D .B . Z em a and G .G . Walsh, W ashington, 56 G u ib ert de N o g en t 1 9 8 1 , pp. 2 1 1 - 1 3 .
1977. 57 A rm ita g e -R o b in so n 1 9 2 6 , pp. 8—9;
2 0 Ib id .,V I, 4. K en d rick 1 9 5 0 , p. 15.
21 Ibid. 5 8 K en d rick 1 9 5 0 , pp. 1 4 - 1 5 .
2 2 Polybius, The Histories, I X .i , trans. 5 9 Stubbs 1 8 6 5 , p. 159.
W. Paton, L o n d o n , 1 9 22. 6 0 A d hem ar 1 9 3 7 , p p .3 1 1 - 1 2 .
2 3 Varro, De R e Rustica, II.i, 3—5, trans. 61 Ibid., p. 81.
W .D. H o o p er and H .B .A s h , London, 6 2 W rig h t 1 8 4 4 , p. 4 4 0 .
1 9 34. 6 3 A dhem ar 1 9 3 7 , p. 99.
2 4 D iod oru s Siculus, Historical Library, I.viii, 6 4 Weiss 1 9 8 8 , p. 12.
trans. E . M urphy, N o rth C arolina and 6 5 Weiss 1 9 8 8 , p. 13, fo o tn o te 4.
L o n d o n ,1985. 6 6 A dhem ar 1 9 3 7 ,p. 1 12.
2 5 Finley 1 9 7 5 , p. 22. 6 7 Weiss 1 9 8 8 , p. 18.
2 6 R u d o lp h 1 9 6 2 -6 3 , p. 170. 6 8 Ibid., p. 2 3 , pi. 5.
2 7 Z h ao M in g ch e n g , in the preface to his 6 9 Ibid., pp. 4 3 - 7 .
Jiti shi lu, after R u d o lp h 1 9 6 2 —3, 7 0 Settis 1 9 8 4 , III, p. 4 5 5 .
pp. 1 6 9 -7 0 . 71 Weiss 1 9 8 8 , pp. 5 1 - 3 .
2 8 Ja co b y 1 9 57, p. 4 7 ; see also the 7 2 R e in sch 1 9 8 3 , p. 170.
co m m en tary in M azzarino 1 9 89, pp. 61 7 3 P icco lo m in i 1 5 5 1 , letter C X X X I , p. 6 8 5 .
and 547. 7 4 R id e 1 9 7 7 ,p. 168.
2 9 Records o f the Grand Historian o f China by 75 P icco lo m in i 1 5 5 1 , p. 6 8 1 .
119
cii
huiie .
v o x il
tanto
b r i t ,
unto
C lio
r e o nc * . s
■'f'r f
it net
met * N
v
CHAPTER
THE E U R O P E
O F T H E
A N T I Q U A R I E S
Par course subi te:
T he at re s, colosses
E n rui nes gr os se s
L e temps precipite.
Q u e sont devenus
L e s mu r s t a n t c o n n u s
D e Troye s u p e r b e ?
I l i o n est c o m m e
M a i n t p a l a i s de R o m e
C a c h e dessous I’herbe.
JO ACH IM D U BELLAY
(Tim e swiftly casts down the theatres and colossi and turns them into Illustration to the
p o em Dittamondo
broken ruins. W hat has become o f the walls o f proud Troy once so fam iliar?
com posed betw een
Ilium, like many a R om an palace, is hidden beneath the grass.) 1 3 1 8 and 1 3 6 0 by
Fazio degli U b erti,
fifteen th -cen tu ry
m anuscript. U b erti
in considering the origins of im agines a conversation
betw een the p o et and
Europe (and thus the origins o f civilisation) the scholars o f the late th e personified city
medieval period had only fragments o f ancient history at their dis clo th ed in m ou rn in g
w h ich acts as his guide.
posal; the rest was lost. In the monasteries and royal courts, scholars H is view o f R o m e is
were desperately trying to reconcile scraps o f Greek and R om an his still very close to the
Mirabilia : the
tory with the biblical account. In the West, history never really made C olosseu m at the
sense o f this impossible marriage, this constant tension, and the cen tre is treated as a
tem ple. T h e draw ing is
em ergence o f the Indo-European myth during the nineteenth cen still m edieval in style,
tury could be seen as the last stage in that long march in which but th e interest in the
m onu m ents is already
Herder and R enan were pioneers.1 B y invoking a primitive language
that o f the
the supposition that ‘spiritually, we are all Sem ites’ may be exorcised. Renaissan ce.
121
R O M E , T H E CAPI TAL OF HI STORY
THE BIRTH OF THE ANTIQUARIES
T h e R o m a n o b s e s s i o n w it h a n c i e n t r e m a in s
We have seen how Italian scholars from the fourteenth century

onwards were the first to undertake a systematic critique o f the
mythical origins o f the western kingdoms. T h e princes o f Europe
were, o f course, in part the heirs o f the R om an Empire, but this was
above all a spiritual and political heritage. The savants o f the Euro
pean courts were no longer compelled to bring the Trojans into the
history o f the ruling houses. These embarrassing ancestors had had to
be expelled from national histories. T h e process was begun in Italy
from 1450, and ended in Germany in 1520 with the affirmation o f
the indigenous origin o f the Franks.2 This had been a difficult task
for scholars, involving as it did the destruction o f things once
beloved —particularly in France, where great pains had been taken to
indulge the hitherto neglected Gauls by demonstrating their Trojan
origins:
T he G auls were greatly renowned for chivalry above all the nations o f the
world [ . . . ] they were descended from Trojans like the R om ans [ . . . ] proud
and contemptuous o f all subjection.3
I f the trem or which shook history — and the sciences — in Europe
began in Italy, it was because Italy stood at the confluence o f two
m ajor formative movements o f the Renaissance. T h e Italians were
the best placed to provide themselves with Latin and Greek manu
scripts, and it was easy for them to establish the presence o f the
ancient past in their towns and countryside. In 1432 Leon Battista
Alberti embarked upon a plan o f R om e, based upon detailed survey;
Flavio B iond o wrote a systematic description o f R o m e which
em bodied new ideas in topographical history, R o m a instaurata, in
1446, soon followed by Italia illustrata in 1453 and R om a triumphans
in 1459. B io n d o’s ambition went far beyond detailed topography. His
Italia illustrata was constructed along the same lines asVarro’s A ntiqui-
tates, the influence o f which was lasting. T h e system applied to all
antiquities — sacred, public, military, private, triumphal,4 Q ui homines
agant, ubi agant, quando agant, quid agant: ‘who are the agents, where,
when and how?’ (Varro).
He defined antiquarian practice by the application o f three cate
122
2 - THE EUROPE OF T H E A N T I Q U A R I E S
gories: the topography o f monuments, geographical survey, and the

analytical description o f the works o f civilisation.5 Such enterprises
were possible because the description o f the monuments o f R o m e
was regarded not merely as an application o f history, but as a contri
bution towards the birth o f a new political philosophy and to the
renaissance o f the arts and sciences. R o m e would becom e Speculum,
exemplar, imago omnis virtutis: mirror, example and image o f all virtue.
T h e recording and research o f the antiquities o f R o m e in the fif
teenth century were not totally specula
tive and impartial. T h e enterprise was
necessary for the development o f the city
and could bring financial returns. T he
ancient monuments were a cheap source
o f building materials for the palaces o f
princes and cardinals, and the building
contracts specified the reuse o f any mate
rials found in situ. In this way, like the
Assyrian cities, R o m e ’s present is literally
constructed upon its past. T h e surveys and
excavations had an econom ic and utilitar
ian function which devolved upon a par
ticular type o f agent, the cavatori, who
exploited the city’s soil in all ways possible
— so much so that the popes attempted to
lim it destruction and to reserve at least part o f the profits for the C elestial Jeru salem ,
m iniature by N ico lo
papal coffers. In 1515 Leo X commissioned Raphael to build the
Polani, 1 4 5 9 . M ad e as
church o f St Peter, with the express instruction to take charge o f any an illustration fo r St
A ugustine’s The City
antiquities w hich would adorn or form part o f the building. H e was
o f God, this m iniature
also ordered to avoid any destruction which had not been authorised presents th e tw o
m od el cities, bo th
by the Pope.6 A bull o f Pius II forbade builders ‘to demolish entirely
recognisably based on
or in part, or to turn into lime, any m onument or its remains’. T he R o m e : th e an cient
Vatican administrator in charge o f antiquities did not bear for notic R o m e o f pagan
m on u m en ts; and
ing the title bestowed by Papal bull in 1573: Comm issioner o f Trea fifteen th -cen tu ry
sures and other Antiquities, and o f M ines.7 This was a clear and R o m e , the capital o f
the C h ristian world.
practical demonstration o f the confidence w hich the Renaissance
Rom ans had in their role as the administrators o f the past. That past
was certainly expressed in the matchless splendour o f the city, but it
also represented a challenge which was both material and symbolic:
the disposition, control and exploitation o f antiquities amounted to
an important stake in the social and econom ic arena. Elsewhere in
123
H en d rik III van C leve, The Cesi Palace and Garden in Rom e, 1 5 8 4 .
T h e taste o f R en aissan ce R o m a n s fo r antiquity is perfectly
represented in this picture. It shows us th e im posing residence
o f Cardinal F ed erico C esi around 1 5 4 0 , w h en h e acquired
the co llectio n o f his broth er Paolo E m ilio C esi to install in the
gardens o f his h ou se at th e fo o t o f th e Ja n icu lu m . In 1 5 6 6
Ulisse Adrovandi visited this co llectio n and left a lon g
description in his w ork Delle statue antiche, che per tutta
Rom a, in diversi luoghi e si veggono.
124
Europe the discovery o f antiquities was depen

dent on chance and curiosity; here, archaeol
ogy answered a need. Besides, ancient R om e,
the city o f the dead, was in fact larger than the
city o f the living. Pirro Ligorio, in his com
mentary on Pliny, emphasised the dual nature
o f ancient R o m e — a city inhabited by both
living men and marble statues — and there is
no doubt that he preferred to be the historian
o f the ‘people o f marble’.8
T h e R om ans o f the period were obsessed
with the remains which surrounded them on
all sides. B u t there was more: in putting trea
sures, antiquities and quarrying on the same
level, the papal administration revealed what
the scholars hid - that the control o f antiqui
ties was an instrum ent o f power. N ot in the
sense o f the m inor Germ an principalities, or
o f the governments o f France, England and
Scandinavia, who used the past as a means o f
legitimising the present, but because antiqui
ties were one o f R o m e ’s resources. They were
symbolic in the sense that all antiquities are
treasure (ultimately realisable), and natural because one only had to T h e courtyard o f the
Sassi villa and th e Cesi
scratch the soil in order to reap a profit o f the same order as that
co llectio n , drawn by
procured by mining for minerals. In Pom ian’s precise definition, the M artin van
H eem skerck in
objects that glittered in cabinets o f antiquities and collections o f
1 5 3 2 - 6 . H eem skerck
curiosa (W underkam m er ), were semiophores. For the popes, the soil o f co n tribu ted through
his pictures to the
R o m e was the most wonderful and most familiar W underkam m er o f
spread o f the taste for
all. R om an antiquities fell somewhere between treasures and mines, th e antique.
T h e courtyard o f the
and having been the object\>f material speculation, they became, so
Sassi villa is show n
to speak, the captives o f intellectual speculation. The antiquaries o f (above) as a m useum
w h ere statues,
R o m e were so quick to proclaim the quality o f the things they
inscriptions and reliefs
found, and to boast o f their historical and mythological merits, that are placed in a setting
o f R enaissan ce
they neglected the value o f the objects themselves as a source o f
architecture.
knowledge. Excavation was like exploiting a quarry, and interpreta In its first state the
C esi co llectio n (below)
tion depended solely upon the availability o f w ritten sources to
was dedicated m ore to
identify the m onum ent. O nly in the second half o f the sixteenth the taste fo r ruins: the
statues w ere placed in
century did the antiquaries o f R o m e begin properly to survey the
an arch aeological
monum ents, and to regard measured drawing as a scientific tool. setting.
125
However, in 1519 Raphael had set out his conception o f the survey
ing o f monuments in a memorandum to the Pope.9 N ot only should
the survey be faithful, exact and orientated, but it should give an
intelligible representation o f the monument: plan, external elevation
and internal elevation. In this sense the expertise o f the antiquary
was inseparable from the practice o f the architect.
LEiBAPT, ALBERTI,
fa&rna \'rfu ‘Ktmr^SCJfuaiws ,iX umru /htffur.St. fauimtntif.iQp.
fflim bryftre, fuffoemg g m t. (f JnihnC l<7ryS<t<icuJitw.
ttffmfunmp ■gty, /»irm mt.C, ' Mb nSfsrSitocdu tfrrtijit;
SURVEYING THE MONUMENTS
uti t f i 'f n m t fac frm/tni t^ne:im*<. £* m itfm ihtu mftm*
■ddrn/mu o t j , j m Jattr.jpu
uii 'it/T m/iiirm lnyfnit fr.tftiur. Stfhffnnf'er iZnctUlJimr'tmqnr'
ifHmtfnyt Hifumt mjUftrj!i*r’jtJJit,chtc utjhtmm, m if»xrf‘
P ir r o L i g o r i o , a r t i s t , a r c h i t e c t a n d s c h o l a r
'tmiri (ifimti- JutrSJtu&e fnutnjvm rr»Jkt-£j* nts rr'Jtt*'
.1
nffythn, Cm fimt- mtrtru n/ttnTtmBa offtfw Mjkfu -Wvntt
umrtt mm Jrrj^Hrai (afcn mfrfntt - fwii rtnfri nrlii ■ terr/I.
a (ijittfu,jtrho*_ ,i\fjnir nafom }tm 1 w frtt J ? r ir n tk ja M n /« * /''
yiniSi". ft mount timfrtwn nJ/lmfhtx.Jtsuli* ru tpcfdtrrjettm "ri'
'-JitlfnjiMJ, ■<H*cito tjfe t* fxrfiwx tfmuxfiw'. Ufa C* iff.-
J ifh trt ttfpmfif :
The execution o f Raphael’s programme fell to Pirro
% fftmm J it fo u r 1'hiMfit fS h m jiti'y tris amm utCif apfhiai-
tt- tifarid m u Oriental jn /n ,fifr . Onîntm
n n tftw>,ja e utfn Jtlfcird-. ji'M trt’ mjhHtt/lj.cir-'
Ligorio. He was born in Naples in 1513 and died in
mxjfafitr- (jut m trtyufit amfiivs m jLirhs tCimdn tigjaACis.-
nt n m trtJin t erfs
irnutf:
J m f t/.m tA t MjtU*•'
i/nut nut(< >*firim inripmM, guifut
Ferrara in 1583. M ore than any other he personified
mcejt mrnrrn' ti/ftnPi/c Sunt m m d m , tr/inr U.o ..? * . f .
t t Mtir.i n t* <rf// triyfitf
imifitnt ri jgttntr;!**'- ArrWMto am , m m W ent n-i~
MtmH ,
the R om an antiquary o f the second half o f the cen
jn nnmcrw n-OtciJmtoR i «t> xpumeto-36-
f^ u t/h r ara/wn qtitnak ijhri t_fcfcuHik t» J tm r jm th u r ■
-.
qua'minuti __* _—.*'b
.i- nwvuftTnl^ gft-t
, .tiji h> tci * tury. ‘Antiquary’ to Cardinal Ippolito d’Este, he was at
once a painter, an architect and it goes w ithout
^ saying, a scholar. Ligorio was both a man o f action
and a savant, even though the famous Archbishop o f
Tarragona, Antonio Agostino, Spanish m entor o f the
E x tra ct from the antiquaries o f R o m e , reproached him for not knowing Latin.
m eth o d o f
Charged by his patron with the planning o f the Villa Tivoli on the
arch aeological survev
developed by th e first site o f the form er villa o f Hadrian, he was probably the first anti
R enaissance
quary to undertake such a large-scale excavation.111 He is described
topographer, L eon
Battista A lberti, in in a letter to the Duke o f Ferrara from his ambassador to the Vatican,
143 3 . T h is page is
and the qualities expected o f a court antiquary o f the time are
taken from his
cartographic p roject detailed:
011 the m onum ents A n antiquary, the foremost in R om e, a man o f fifty-five years [ ...] the
o f R om e.
very best [ ...] not only in the art of medals, but in that o f drawing, o f fortifi
cations, and many others; he was inspector o f the w orkm anship o f the fortifi
cations o f R om e, he has served the whole world and the Cardinal o f Ferrara
in particular: his nam e is Pirro L igorio.u
T h e Renaissance antiquary owed as m uch to Archimedes as to
Plan of R o m e made Herodotus. He was indispensable to every architectural project, for
in 1 5 3 3 by Pirro
L ig orio. In this plan
at the time there was no architecture w ithout archaeology in Italy.
L ig orio integrates Excavation and the development o f survey techniques swiftly
m od ern topography
w ith an archaeological
affected the way in which monuments were regarded, and this m ir
survey. His plan o f the rored the revolution in the study and editing o f ancient texts. The
Palatine is shown as an
antiquaries needed to maintain their link with scholarly circles in
anatom ical study o f
the remains. order to be able to interpret coins or to restore and decipher
126
72 7
inscriptions, and they thus becam e familiar

with methods o f textual criticism — the em en-
datio, or correction, and the recensio, the check
ing and com parison o f manuscripts. T h e
learned o f the R o m an cou rt coexisted with
the artists and entrepreneurs charged with the
building o f the new R o m e . Differences can
certainly be observed between the fastidious
ness o f the philologists w orking towards the
most faithful restoration possible o f manu
scripts and inscriptions, and the enthusiasm o f
the artists for the restoration o f the works
Time conquers all, it embraces all human endeavours w hich they discovered. B u t the m ood o f the
A nd all human handicrafts
tim e favoured the creation o f an intellectual
Yet antiquity, universally revered
Always comes to an untimely end. milieu in w hich such differences were ironed
As you can see, and carved marbles
out. Antonio Agostino, a harsh critic o f Ligorio
Show the virtue o f human trials.
Triumphal arches and beautiful walled cities and o f many others, was nonetheless swift to
The chiselled faces o f antique medals
admit that he considered him one o f the fore
B ear witness today to the greatness o f spirits
W hose names have not yet been penned fo r posterity. most specialists o f his time. W hilst L ig o rio ’s
works on epigraphy are famous for their mis
T h e love o f takes and inaccuracies, his plans o f R o m e are impressive and con
antiquities, accord ing
vincing, both in their execution and their factual content. Primarily
to Joh an n es
Sam bucus, Emblemata, an active spirit, Ligorio published little, but his wonderful notebooks
1 5 6 4 . E m b lem bo ok s
show that he was no mere cataloguer.12 He interested him self in the
w ere popular in the
fifteen th cen tury; ordering o f his m aterial and applied his mind to questions o f
dedicated to the
archaeological method. Should antiquities be grouped systematically
Vatican P refect, this
im age is o ne o f the by type, or should the approach be topographical? How might one
first to illustrate unite archaeological with textual criticism?
excavation as a means
o f historical research. All o f these issues were tackled vigorously by the antiquaries o f
R o m e , stimulated by scholars and sceptics like Agostino, who was
one o f the first to bring b atk into question the supremacy o f text
over object: ‘I have more faith in medals, tablets and stones than in
Illustration from the
anything set down by w riters.’13 R ev olu tionary words, com ing
m anual Roman from som eone w ho was also a philologist, but one w ho was not
Antiquities by
B a rth olo m eu s
afraid to provoke his colleagues; he emphasised the necessity for a
R o sin u s.T h is w ork science o f historical evidence w hich distinguished itself from a
is notable for its
landscape views o f
blind faith in text. T h e Archbishop o f Tarragona wished for a more
th e m ost rem arkable open-m inded approach to the past, one based upon detailed
ruins in R o m e ; show n
description and drawing:
here are the B aths o f
D iocletian . From their works [those o f Ligorio and som e o f his colleagues] you would
128
2 THE EUROPE OF T H E A N T I Q U A R I E S
P A R S I N T E R IO T ^ T H E R M rA R V M D I O C L E T I A N / .
P A R S E X T E R I O R T H E R M A R F M .
129
imagine that they had read all the Latin and G reek hooks ever written, but
what they have done is to use the know ledge o f others. T he value oj their
works lies not in their writings but in their drawings .14
R om an methods spread to numerous other Italian courts. The
Italian antiquaries had transformed an interest in the past into an
interest in the present, and more. They demonstrated the existence o f
a material antiquity w hich was ju st as im portant as the idealised
antiquity o f the texts, but their true m erit lay in their development
o f techniques — epigraphy, numismatics, the study o f topography —
w hich made a science o f the subject, or at least
gave to those who were dissatisfied with the em o
tional and aesthetic approach the means to build
their knowledge upon a discipline.
T itian , Portrait o f Jacopo Strada,

1 5 6 7 .T h e painter and co llecto r
Ja co p o Strada o f M antua was
th e leading purveyor o f
antiquities to the G erm an
Im perial C o u rt: a pupil o f
T itian , h e owes part o f his
reputation to this striking
portrait o f him by his master.
130
f
M artin van H eem skerck, The Good Samaritan, 1568.

In this co m p ositio n , the painter associates the parable o f the
G o o d Sam aritan w ith the discovery, in the Pope’s presence,
o f a statue o f C ap ito line Jupiter. D oes he suggest by this
that th e Pope and his co u rt lavished on th e statue o fju p ite r
the same care as was shown by the G o o d Sam aritan to the
unfortunate v ictim o f th ieves' D oes this canvas signify in
the m an n er o f U lrich von H u tten , a G erm an H um anist
w h o was unsparingly critical o f the clergy, that the Pope and
his cardinals were m ore occup ied by the search for
pagan idols than by respect for biblical know ledge?
Is it a m atter here ‘o f archaeologists o r Pharisees’?
(E. G o m b rich )
131
T H E D I S C O V E R Y OF THE PAST
THE LOST ANTIQUITY OF T HE GAULS
NICOLAS FA BRI DE PEIRESC (1 5 8 0 - 1 6 3 7 )
P h i l o l o g i s t , m a t h e m a t i c i a n , a s t r o n o m e r , la w y e r ,
n a tu r a lis t — a n d a n tiq u a r y
There was a sense o f inferiority among European anti

quaries as knowledge in Italy advanced — due, no doubt,
to the prestige o f the antiquaries o f R o m e and to the
quality o f their work, knowledge o f which spread as a
result o f the flowering o f Italian Humanism. It was a
Veronese expert, Paolo Em ilio, who produced the first
study o f the origins o f Gaul, D e A ntiquitate G alliarum ,
published in Lyons in 1485. It was not the most original
o f works, but it did contribute, along with other Italian
works o f the same period, to the re-establishment o f the
Gauls, who had been eclipsed by the ‘Trojan’ Franks
throughout the medieval period. C olette Beaune wrote
that, thanks to the Italians: ‘In 1 4 8 0 a Frenchm an could be
sure o f G allic ancestors which he did not have in 1 4 0 0 .’15
P eter Paul R u b en s, Medieval history knew only the Franks, and did its utmost to
Self-portrait, 1 6 22. In
prove their ancient cousinhood with the French, while the Italians
1 6 2 9 , w h en R u b en s
sent this self-portrait restored to them their Gallic forebears. As editions and versions o f
to Peiresc, the
Caesar’s G allic Wars multiplied, the Humanists had access to a text
tow nsfolk o f A ix -e n -
Provence could n ot w hich gave credence to their enquiry. Scholars and poets were to
restrain their
indulge themselves hugely with the Gauls o f their im agination;
astonishm ent at seeing
the m ost celebrated Ronsard and Joachim du Bellay would compose Gallic poems.
artist o f the tim e T he theme was a controversial one — the history o f the national
h o n o u rin g the austere
and learned identity appeared to begin with a defeat, which the historians would
m agistrate. have to incorporate into their writing o f the history o f Gaul. Schol
ars during the early part o f the sixteenth century preferred the
image o f a Gaul pacified by Caesar and heir to Latin and Greek cul
ture. Those o f the second half o f the century, on the other hand,
inclined more towards the struggle against the R om an invader, and
presented Gaul as the victim o f an unlucky stroke o f fate, whilst
maintaining cultural and political independence, a Gaul which had
forever been a civilised nation:
Every man should kn ow that G aul, or France, has always been a law-
abiding nation, and that all was well w hile the three parts o f the R epublic
132
agreed among themselves, and that disaster only struck when the ear coveted
the function o f the eye, and the fo o t w ished to be h ea d .16
This quotation from N oel Taillepied, author o f L ’H istoire de I’E tat
et de la R epublique des Druides, w hich appeared in 1585, reminds us
that in France the debate on origins always had a political bias; the
politics vary according to the place assigned by historians to the
three main constituents o f the French nation — Gauls, Rom ans and
Germans. Behind the ‘three parts’ lies the question o f population and
political sovereignty which was to be so prominent in
the eighteenth-century debate. From the sixteenth
century onwards the history o f the Gauls was an
ideological matter. Against the legitimist, authoritarian
history o f some learned Catholics was set a liberal
and republican image o f the Gauls w hich found
expression in the works o f men like Francois Hotman
and Petrus R am u s.17
I f the matter o f Gallic origins was a problem o f
great im portance in sixteenth-century France, antiq
uities were hardly ever taken into account. In order to
pursue the critical appraisal o f sources it was neces
sary to find the monuments and go out into the field,
paying as much attention to material remains as to the texts. W ith a Painting o f the
Flem ish sch ool,
few exceptions, such an awareness still eluded the French Humanists,
portrait o f N icolas
and the feeling oi inferiority o f French scholars was well expressed Fabri de Peiresc, 163 7 .
by Taillepied:
Foreigners have sw eated and striven more in the pursuit o f the excellent
deeds oj the ancient G auls than the citizens and villagers o f the country
itself: to the degree that it would seem (which is not so) that there was never
any learned man in this country o f France.'*
As far as antiquities are concerned, there were in fact few experts
in the realm o f France, but during the follow ing generation the
work o f Peiresc was to capture the attention o f the world o f learn
ing. N icolas Fabri de Peiresc was born in 1580 in Belgentier,
Provence, and died in A ix in 1637. It is one o f the paradoxes o f
intellectual history that he was unanimously recognised both by his
contem poraries and by posterity as the greatest o f the French anti
quaries, at least until M ontfaucon, but that he never published any
thing. H e is best know n through the extraordinary biography
w ritten by his friend, the theologian and m athem atician Pietro
Gassendi, and through a E urope-w ide corresp on d en ce.19 A fter a
133
THE DISCOVERY OP T H E PAST
sound education in A ix he embarked in 1 599 upon a jou rn ey to

Italy which was to prove crucial. T h e young lawyer resumed his
studies in Padua, aligning him self w ith the cream o f the Italian
intelligentsia, including Galileo and Cardinal B arberin i. Besides
Gassendi and Malherbe, his French circle embraced men such as De
Th ou , Casaubon and the chancellor duVair.To these must be added
dozens o f famous names, among them R u ben s and W illiam
Cam den, the founder o f B ritish archaeology. T h e striking thing
about Peiresc, which he possessed to a much greater degree than
any o f his contem poraries (and these were not lacking in curiosity),
was the diversity o f his interests: antiquary, philologist, mathem ati
cian, astronomer, lawyer, naturalist — nothing failed to arouse his
curiosity. H e was a prodigious collector o f books, objects, plants; he
dabbled in the breeding o f pedigree cats and began to learn the
Sem itic languages. Beneath this greed for knowledge was an iron
will and an impressive gift for organisation. O n his return from
Italy Peiresc ran what might today be called a bureau o f scientific
inform ation, buying, exchanging and publicising anything and
everything worthy o f consideration or classification. His goal, how
ever, had nothing to do with the creation o f a collection or library,
or the form ation o f a great body o f inform ation. His wish was to
create an invisible, Europe-w ide college o f savants o f which he was
adm inistrator and patron. T h ere is no better example o f the
Humanist than Peiresc, and nothing is more difficult to reconstruct
than his activities. His knowledge is more clearly perceived through
its effect in hisôwn period than through the work he never pub
lished, w hich was no doubt to do much more w ith the identifica
tion and on-the-spot ‘autopsy’ o f an ob ject or m onum ent than with
a systematic programme such as L igo rio’s. O f his R om an activities
Gassendi writes:
H e would carry about selected coins which he compared with the statues,
seeking their date and type. H e was such an expert that he knew im m edi
ately what was a genuine antiquity and what a copy. H e w ished to have
copies o f every ancient inscription, and he tried fro m his own know ledge to
fill in the gaps and to restore the most hopeless texts. Then he exam ined the
Vatican manuscripts and those o f the Farnese and others, and noted down
those ivhich seem ed to him the most rare. H e also noted everything which he
deem ed worthy o f interest in the collections o f metalwork and statuary, in the
cabinets and the museums, in the galleries and in various houses. In this way
he brought together an extraordinary body o f objects — by asking to borrow
134
Frontisp iece by R u b en s, trom the num ism atic m anual Greek and Roman Monuments by
H u b ert Golzius (1 6 8 5 ). A num ism atist, G oltzius (1 5 2 6 —83) was also painter, engraver,
p rin ter and historiographer o f Philip II o f Spain. O n the right o f this fro n tisp ieccT im e ,
aided by D eath , scythes dow n and casts in to the cave o f tim e the fou r antique realms:
R o m a n s , M aced onians, Persians and M edes. O n the left, M ercu ry holds a shovel; at his
feet are G reek and R o m an antiquities in the form o f m arble busts; his arm s enfold a
nearly in tact statue o f an em peror. A bove him H ercules hands an en o rm o u s vase full o f
coins to a servant. Pallas A thena looks on, co m m en tin g and interpretin g the coinage
o t kings and Caesars. At the centre stands th e figure o f Antiquity’, veiled and crow ned,
on w hose chest an open b o o k symbolises historical and num ism atic know ledge.
T h e p h oen ix above em bodies m ortality and rebirth.
135
Egyptian mummy, them, or by exchanging items, or receiving them as gifts, or by obtaining

drawn by R u b e n s in
impressions, casts, fragments or drawings.20
1 6 2 6 and sent to Fabri
de Peiresc. T his This dazzling portrait o f an antiquary at work was born at least as
draw ing attests to
m uch o f the wish to create a vision o f erudition as to give a faithful
con tem porary
co llecto rs’ fascination description o f Peiresc and his feverish activity. Gassendi summons up
fo r this type o f
for us a picture o f the antiquary’s metier in the context of R o m e at
antiquity. T h e little
annotations in Italian the beginning o f the seventeenth century. Like Raphael or Ligorio,
are by Peiresc. Peiresc was driven by an insatiable appetite for knowledge. Like his
predecessors too, he was sure that he was practically the first to see
the objects, monuments, inscriptions or manuscripts which he dis
covered. T h e difference lies more in the circumstances o f discovery
than o f observation. Peiresc’s way was not to dig
up w onderful new things, to seek com ponents,
ornaments or ideas for the building o f a palace. His
palace was o f the m ind, o f erudition. H ere the
antiquary’s role is not to bring objects to light, but
to bring his own sharper perception to bear in order
to reveal what his predecessors could not see, or
compare, or restore. B efore Peiresc the antiquary’s
jo b was to frame the present so as to restore the past
in a form acceptable to his contemporaries. After
wards, the past was the proper domain o f the expert,
who could recognise true and false, who could enter
restricted territory, identify places and collections,
occupy a region in which he was likely to be chal
lenged by others who watched for his faults or pur
sued the same rare ob ject. Here, in a sense, the
Etudes d ’antiquites, by antiquary had lost the direct, emotional relationship with the past
N icolas Poussin,
enjoyed by Petrarch’s contemporaries, but he had gained in expertise
c.1 6 4 5 . Poussin
exem plified the taste and analytical skills — in short, in knowledge. For this kind o f work
fo r antiquities that to progress there must be access to cabinets o f curiosities, public or
seized sev enteenth-
cen tu ry artists. private museums, and craftsmen able to undertake the restoration
work, the drawings and the casts necessary tor research. Essentially,
Peiresc is telling us that since the specialist justifies him self through
his knowledge, it is no longer necessary to be a R om an or an Italian
in order to be an antiquary; it’s enough to travel to Italy. T he knowl
edge o f antiquities thus became a shared resource:
M any peop le loudly scorn our studies, saying that they bring no glory to
those ivho pursue them and no usefulness to others. T h e only ones who
deserve such reproach are those w ho seek scholarship o f a meretricious sort, or
136
2 - THE EUROPE OF T H E ANTIQUARIES
lA M*tC+
.( "tt*«
5THBit^tSie®t3ea; *1 '
»!i-> /.v i I
|i»' .r-y>.. ,
an'Se,«BtS9r|i ■,;
n^naeaarTi' J
-,:n .1
l i s t ’ 'r > . v . i r
|| Iff i. |
i " o r-1
D J’+ft* fx»jf tlvxitni A

) jju a * ),, y r r . ^ i A ,
'M tflfam o »» i 0y>J,Wt* .
13 7
even worse, content themselves with collecting antiquities to adorn their cup
boards and decorate their houses, only desiring them in order to bc seen to
possess them. On the other hand there are those who are entirely praisew or
thy and do not waste their time in any sense — they research the antiquities,
study them and publish them in order to throw light on the works o f the
classical historians, to illustrate the unfolding o f history, the better to impress
upon the minds o f men its personalities and their deeds, and great events.21
Peiresc’s defence o f the antiquary is presented in terms o f objects
and appears to disregard the monuments. He is evidently thinking o f
portable antiquities — inscriptions, statues, vessels — objects which
could be grouped together and ordered according to recognisable
type, w ithout going into the elaborate procedures demanded by
m onum ental archaeology. N ot that Peiresc neglected monuments;
but for him, the heart o f archaeology was collection. He was a col
lector 'o f a particular sort, in contrast to the accepted model — an
antiquary who put the knowledge o f objects before their enjoyment.
There is a truism implied here on the function o f antiquaries, which
nevertheless hints at an underlying value system. Antiquities were
first a m atter o f taste, then a status symbol, and lastly a means o f
gaining knowledge ...
Peiresc, or archaeology incomplete: one cannot follow the career
o f this remarkable antiquary from Aix without the sense o f work cut
short, o f an inquisitive energy which burned out because o f its very
intensity. And the works themselves - the dispersed collections, the
lost manuscripts — could have sprung from the imagination o f one
such as Borges, the true story o f the antiquary who knew every
thing, understood everything, but never had time to w rite it all
down. Fortunately, as we shall see, Peiresc did leave a real if impalpa
ble mark, measurable by the influence which it never ceased to exert
over his contemporaries and successors.
138
E N GL I S H S C H O L A R - T R A V E L L E R S AND
GERMAN DIGGERS
GEOGRAPHY AND ANTIQUITY IN THE

BRITISH ISLES
W illia m C a m d e n a n d th e e x p lo r a tio n o f B r itis h a n tiq u itie s
Peiresc had shown the learned world that i f there was a chosen
country for all antiquaries, antiquity itself was omnipresent wherever
enquiring minds wished to discover it. T h e lesson was extended
beyond the R om an palaces but kept in close communion with the
most fervent classical scholarship. From the Norwegian fjords to the
banks o f the Thames, the plains o f Moravia to the canals o f Holland,
men began to scrutinise the soil and the countryside, not charged
with the task o f building palaces as luxurious as those o f Caesar, and
not digging for treasure but, like Peiresc’s good antiquary, seeking to
understand. Among them was a man whom Peiresc knew well from
a youthful work which had shown him to be the Flavio Biondo o f
the kingdom o f England: ‘In 1586, a thirty-five-year-old school
master named W illiam Cam den published an historical and geo
graphical description o f the British Isles entitled B ritan n ia!22 Portrait o f w illia m
This book, due to its innovative character and the quality o f its f-am d en , painted by
1 J M arcus G heeraerts the
observations, was soon to becom e the bible o f British archaeology Y ounger m 1609.
and to see repeated editions, added to and

enriched, from the death o f Camden to the pre
sent day. Camden was not the first English anti
quary, but he emerged as a model and an example
to an even greater degree than Peiresc, because his
work was easily accessible. His personal aim o f
com pacting within a single volume a historical
description o f England was not new. Such a project
had been conceived and begun by Joh n Leland,
librarian to Henry V III and a pupil o f Guillaume
B u d e in Paris, w ho planned a D e A n tiq u ita te
B rita n n ia , the prologue o f which appeared in
15 4 6 .23 U nfortunately this ‘Pausanias o f Tudor
England’, who understood so well how to com
bine his talent for description with visiting and
examining sites, was struck by a sudden madness
139
and had to abandon his researches in 1550. B e that as it may, he was

the first in England to put forward a method which com bined the
study o f sources with a ‘peregrination’, som ething which was to
becom e the defining characteristic o f British archaeology.
Leland had been the discoverer and talented observer o f a histori
cal landscape overthrown by the R eform ation and Dissolution o f the
Monasteries between 1535 and 1539. Camden was to reveal himself
as a successor who surpassed the master. B orn in 1551, the son o f a
painter (which might explain his interest in the visual arts), Camden
studied the classics at O xford. In 1575 he was appointed Second
Master at Westminster School, and from this modest position was to
revolutionise the knowledge o f English antiquities. Taking advantage
o f school holidays, each year he visited a different part o f the coun
try in search o f antiquities. His method was topographical and, using
\ R om an geography as his starting point, consisted o f constructing a
local history for each English city. B u t his interest was not limited to
remote antiquity. T he ancient geography had to form a basis for a
history w hich considered the Saxon and medieval periods as part o f
the history o f a kingdom claiming a place in the learned world. Pre
cision as to tim e and precision as to space were C am den’s two
imperatives, and to this end he invented the rules o f historical car
tography: the linguistic study o f place-names to determ ine their
Gallic, Saxon and R o m an origins, the reconstitution o f territorial
history from tradition, and the study o f coinage. H e was the first to
establish the existence o f native mints in R o m an Britain and to
decipher the coin inscriptions to identify the cities w hich issued
them . C ontrary to the Trojan legends and R o m an tradition, he
emphasised the A nglo-Saxon nature o f the origins o f the British
people.
Cam den’s work emerged with such authority in the still little-cul-
tivated field o f European archaeology that it seems a spontaneously
generated phenom enon. B u t Cam den’s originality knew how to take
advantage o f a Humanist tradition attested not only by Leland, but
also by the direct spread o f Italian and C ontinental Humanism to
Great Britain. It was to an Italian, Polydore Vergil, that the history o f
England owed the rebuttal o f the Trojan theories o f Geoffrey o f
M onm outh in his H istoriae A ngliae L ibri (1534). In the learned circles
w hich he frequented, Cam den encountered people like Jean
Hotman, son o f the author o f the F ran co-G allia, and the D utch geog
rapher Abraham O rtelius. M oreover, he was certainly one o f the
140
hosts o f Peiresc when the latter visited England. Camden embodied

a British archaeology, which was open to Continental influence, but
which knew how to draw on local traditions as well as details o f the
landscape to lay the foundations o f a national historiography. His
fame never m atched that o f Peiresc but, unlike him, he had the
means to take part in a collective project w hich was that o f an entire
generation o f men moved by the distant past o f England. H e was
surrounded by men such as Sir R o b ert C otton, Joh n Spelman and
many others who worked together in a C ollege o f Antiquaries
which constituted one o f the very first scholarly societies o f archae
ology in Europe. In 1592 Camden was named Clarenceux K in g-of-
Arms (i.e. one o f the three senior heralds in the realm), and this role
contributed to the development o f his studies and connections: suc
cessive editions o f the Britannia were enriched with plates o f coins
and transcriptions o f inscriptions. In 1622, at the height o f his
achievement, Camden him self founded a chair in his name for the
teaching o f history at Oxford. Camden had not made the study o f
antiquities into a science, any more than he had approached the his
tory o f the p re-R om an populations o f Great Britain in a radically
new way, but he gave British archaeology a framework o f reference
(regional history), a method o f observation (the combination o f lit
erary inform ation w ith description o f the landscape) and a tech
nique o f exploration (the close study o f topynomic and numismatic
sources) w hich dominated archaeology from the seventeenth cen
tury to the start o f the eighteenth. Above all — and this is undoubt
edly one o f the reasons for his success — he was not isolated
scientifically; in 1607 Sir Jo h n Oglander moved to the Isle o f W ight
and his attention was attracted by the ancient monum ents and
tumuli:
A t my fy rs t cominge to inhabit in this Island A n n o 1 6 0 7 , I went to
Quarr, and inquyred o f divors ow ld men where ye greate church stood.
T heyre wase but one, Fathor Pennie, a verye ow ld man, coold give me anye
satisfaction; h e told m e he had bene often in ye church when itt wase
standinge, and told me w hat a goodly church itt wase; and fu rth or sayd that
itt stoode to ye sowthw ard o f all ye ruins, com e then growinge where it
stoode. I hired soom e to digge to see w hethor I myght ftn d e ye fow n dation
butt cowld not.24
This most interesting testim ony demonstrates that there were
great prospects for excavation as a control mechanism, as evidence
capable o f confirm ing or denying a story. But Oglander went further,
\4t
THE DISCOVERY O ¥ THE PAST
Plate from Moiumietita for him excavation could also be a means o f exploration which
iiteditci rcnim
might explain features o f the landscape:
gcmhiuicmvm by E.J. de
W estphalen. published You may sec divors buries on ye topp of owre Island hills, whose nam e in
in 173 9 . T h is volum e
ye D anische tounge signifieth thcyr nature, as beinge places onlie weare men
also contains the
works of N icolaus were buryed /.../. I haue digqed for my experience in soom e of ye moore
M a rsch a lk .T b e very
awntientest, and haue found manic bones o f men form erlye consumed by
disparate iconography
o f this plate owes fyor, accordinge to ye R om an e custome [...] . W heresover you see a burie in
m ore to medieval any eminent place, moste commonlye on ye topp o f hilles, you may presum e
tradition than to the
spirit o f the that there hath beene soom e buryed; accordinge to ye etimoligie o f ye woord,
R enaissan ce and the — digge, and you shall find they re bones.25
E n lig h ten m en t. It is
interesting to com pare Here was someone who had understood the topographic and
the im age of the toponym ic lessons o f Camden and, with his practical background,
dolm en associated
w ith devils and o th er was ready to undertake excavations, not in search o f treasure, but to
zoom orph s w ith satisfy his curiosity.
M eisterlin ’s
illustrations
(see pp. 1 0 9 -1 0 ).
EXCAVATORS IN GERMANY
N ic o la u s M a r s c h a lk
Digging up the soil is not in itself an activity which requires ability or

particular technique, and we have seen that in certain circumstances
the men o f antiquity themselves had considered that excavation could
provide answers to questions o f a cultural, technical or even historical
nature. Alongside the hunt for treasure, doubtless practised since trea
sure first existed, as the Egyptian, Assyrian or Chinese texts show, there
M egalith in the form
existed a hunt for information, to which certain medieval chronicles
of a dolm en , detail of
plate opposite. testify;26 but there is little evidence for the spontaneous archaeology
practised by spirits as innovatory as
t J)r£rt(xr>
Oglander. In so far as the documents allow
us to judge, it was a Thuringian scholar,
Nicolaus M arschalk (1460/70 — 1525),
who seems to have been the first to apply
his Humanist background to the solving
o f a historical question by means o f exca
vation.27 He examined the difference
between megalithic alignments and
tumuli, and well-versed in the Latin
sources dealing with Germanic peoples,
attempted to attribute the one to the
‘Herules’, the other to the ‘O betrites’. N ot
142
143
THE DISCOVERY OF T HE PAST
Vases rising from the

earth, after
B arth elem y de
G lanville, Le livre des
proprietes des choses,
fiftee n th -cen tu ry
m anuscript (above)
and incunabula
published in 1485
(below ). In the
m edieval p eriod th e
discovery o f an cient
vases in the ground
was th e o b je c t o f
num erous
interpretations. In the
tw o scenes these vases
are represented as
b o rn spontaneously
from th e earth.
2 - 1 HE EUROPE OE T H E ANTIQUARIES
content with studying the monum ents themselves, he noted that

cremation urns had been found nearby and regarded these as the burials
o f the servants o f the chiefs interred in the funerary monuments:
Som e o f them were left to burn
Placed in urns directly on the ground.
Like the ‘thunderbolts’ (shaped flints), the megaliths and tumuli,
the prehistoric urn cremation cemeteries were part o f the ‘archaeo
logical landscape’ o f medieval and modern Europe. But the presence
in the plains o f central Europe o f immense ‘urnfields’ was
an extra elem ent of curiosity. Discovery, mainly fortu
itous, took on a particular prominence when persons o f
im portance were witnesses. In 1529 Martin Luther visited
the church at Torgau and was shown urns which had been
recently discovered. A commission concluded that ‘there
must have been a cem etery there.’28 Sim ilarly, in 1544
a citizen o f Breslau (W roclaw ), G eorg U ber, w rote to a
friend after the discovery o f pots at Liibben in the
Spreewald:
I believe we are in the presence of a funerary ritual of a p eop le
who, having no proper urns, used earthenware vessels as a substi
tute, which, as a sign of piety, they filled with the ashes and left
over implements from the pyre.2'1
N ot everyone, however, accepted this view; the C osm o-
graphia o f Sebastian Munster, which appeared in the same
I °c>
year, took up the old myth o f pots ‘born spontaneously in
the soil’.30 B u t this time the story was badly received. In
the light o f a quite widely shared scepticism, Princess
Anne of Saxony asked for an enquiry, and ten years later (gggjigiBgi
the Prince E lector o f Saxony celebrated the acquisition o f a certain R ep resen tatio ns o f
‘thunderbolts’ from a
num ber o f urns in the following terms: ‘It is likely that, in times
C h in ese encyclopaedia
gone by, in the pagan world, since it was customary to burn the by L i-S h i-T s c h m ,
159 6 . T h e flints
dead, they were buried there [in the ‘urn fields’ ].’ 31 Like the
interested C hinese
‘thunderbolts’ the urns (which we now recognise as vessels o f the antiquaries and
naturalists o f the
Lusatian culture) were regarded as curiosities appropriate for the
sixteen th centurv.
royal cabinets o f rare objects (W underkam m er).
These precious objects were frequently embellished to adapt them
to the tastes o f the time; the museums in Frankfurt and Hamburg
still have two pots, one o f Lusatian culture adorned with a tin cover
ing, the other o f the G erm ano-R om an period ( terra nigra) elaborated
with silver decoration.
145
T h e funerary deposits o f vases and other objects in the ground

made for one o f the most debated issues among central European
antiquaries during the sixteenth century. The princely courts took
an interest, the pots acquired monetary value, collectors sought after
them and, o f course, the learned were called on for advice. The
explanations could be fantastic (‘the product o f dwarves who
worked deep below ground’); natural — as in the
©on otm jpi'tafl t&ap'f/f Polish tradition o f J. Dlugosz, who believed them
Vcrg«nb<(tqr.3trfp*«bl(l(ln ip;ad»«iic btiiPcldn)/
j^t8|frii/CttM*tt/’<to«fe®U’urrn mianl'crn »4ltf«nW55fif u-oitf 6e/t><»B to be form ed by a sort o f subterranean firing; or

M»^faiA<bV(rcnetiiife[<b(iiUna<tn/vi(fid>3r«iiif<|)rB^cbM>jniUctiHb9«
fccmw»9»'t«rtat»Uef<*li>.‘e*t»4lUMJi<t><xo®«i«Bgtiwifcr®r*befntt po»
l4B9t»«»»l»fJ/b«U64tln?nwwi-fui.6(n/6fc«irm«emitrfrl6ti>aaD.ttMtrte»
-tasBtKWtffmlmb.CM wlnttiig/MruieniKb manj«ll>a«
archaeological. But this last interpretation, although
w* b P»i!i/g<r|?<n/(rbtj|>n*na niittrt
;'M(to<»HlMW«ltvJ«<b/(l<rf.to/b»nlg/mtl*/luttrt>'#riIvg/*i0cl/pifrt)x>H ab*.
i|C»SofS'«^«*» Wring wnV&Qi^ttfefnbaovtccbfrn/fraocej/tralfttlW.’Vu offered since the end o f the fifteenth century, was
/^lMtt3'b4o«ectilielwtt.X»?anf'4ttiflr<ia8iB?rcurfrtil5!>odj|ci</sP4rt-f|'li)ic#
ik*'«W'»<i>«fMMwi»/fccib»BW^gufMfrwBvilfai9/g«gMfcinwngtiet
tjnt/(ef;fUd>U5BC,<K>ai!pn&4itrij«riWli<i)ce>tiKiipjf(i'|i! fIlit(HA«ftfl/bc|on# not the prevailing one, at least before the start o f
r.-l>M«J«0TnwwimiCaItigtwfU‘ttttS{>,5fii£t)£msnfupff(tiiiigft|t(inJ/fwruan
ibrt£<nrnsr<Sfl«Tt/«b<t»iai f4<fcnnintf n«<t^fe jcg.n6«mm4t«ju m«a the eighteenth century. The question, however, had
—. tfa,a|hci/?n*b(rfrtnp,J(«U4*o«.imop4!ut71fm9t m(tit
n ' Mfr» *»« frmfcson6 nacnrfot micrc/vnb vim6|jemanf
eni<iufKi,u|i»«m
..
[jfiiifnmin!n{>ifrniUiii>ran«fri3cnbf»^«bicffinn1jiiitiict>
, - ............................. ...wfcMifcirM/iH.TtVhw been splendidly summarised by Georg Agricola in
2 Stndlrtn;ar< ifingcof cbfrt ooSim C.iit
3 r*«Bl(m&jftjPifcmKinigKWi3«WHbflt.fn/hfltd>«*i)fccs
/WrU'tffelammoieiigcbiggb. .Cub«f/al» pemitn/fl0(d<U'nr3/0lcTX'<fif</ his famous book D e Natura Fossilium:
,< m i»vni>«cffrut*b|trunfmf
i;fci«9
Jbitrj/6K(Woi-rf/e4>t<B4/vi»6£.i|
n6 jn
flq/trri*cUiih(ri««d)V
3rc{.tf<Wi.i.cn&
fiti«<l'M
jid»
fcin».£*Ki»M
:U$mcU4itntJncbtil3tf4:l<n Jii&ts li<i$mi'Pngcrat>nfc 23ctwnt. T he ignorant masses in S axon y and L ow er Lusatia
believe that these fla s k s were gen erated spontaneously
within the earth; the Thuringians believe that they were
used by the m onkeys which form erly inhabited the caves
o f Seeberg. O n careful consideration, they are urns in
,i , cnitjirmfcolanbe/xjnboe (It
ifiH’lfltAM/fcbf^fi>w4)Ji,pfa(^Sii<&(t|ietO«r<Dotenneiteii/Mtkf<14110* which the ancient Germans, not yet converted to C hris
ja
.wjfj|.riitci»nw*rtitrff«KreM
/r?rwjt<m
ptkl/cr.|>»i»«i*imrai>MiUHf|
#»h(wn^t?/4b»*BtfMffltf^n4Af|><i[6«iifc4.to( nmSfnrf(Btffenlt ibrt«
iSwptti'fiob«b*" >twbijritiifwi tcn«<m/fnainua'k<etmri tianity, preserved the ashes o f the burnt corpses.32
anptitur
T h e p ro to h istoric urns posed a problem for
sixteenth-century scholars, not only when the
knowledge o f the latter was compared with popu
Page from lar belief, but also because the urns appeared in the earth in a form
Cosmographiae
that did not obviously accord with their experience o f funeral prac
universalis, w ritten
by the G erm an tices. An intimate o f the Duke o f Schleswig, Paulus Cypraeus,
geographer Sebastian
described thus a site discovered in 1588 during work for the con
M u n ster in 1 5 44.
struction o f a road: ‘O ne had scarcely put down on e’s foot or driven
in on e’s shovel, when the urns and the remains o f bones appeared to
the point o f covering the ground.’33
These strange accumulations o f vases in the earth, which it
seemed could not be reconciled with known practices, were inter
preted with a certain logic by a Lutheran pastor named Johannes
Mathesius, in 1562:
It is indeed rem arkable that these vessels are so varied in shape that no
one is like the other, and that in the earth they are as soft as coral in water,
hardening only in the air [ ...] . It is said that there was once a grave on the
spot, with the ashes o f the dead, as in an ancient urn /.../. But since the vessels
146
are only dug up in May, when they reveal their position by forming mounds
as though the earth were pregnant (which guides those who seek them), I
consider them to be natural growths, not manufactured, but created by G od
and N ature.34
T he pastor’s fanciful text tells us more than the critiques o f the
learned rationalists because it specifies the circumstances under
which the urns were discovered. T h e pots were sought out by those
who collected them and to an extent traded them. These open-air
antiquaries had observed that in particular clim atic conditions
prospecting was easier than in others, and from this they derived
practical lessons on the best m ethod o f discovery. T h e ‘harvest’ o f
P rotoh istoric vase

(far left) o f Lausitz
culture. In the
sixteenth cen tu ry it
was decorated w ith
engraved leaves and
provided with a zinc
lid m arked w ith the
nam e o f the Im perial
co u n cillo r H aug von
M axen (r. 156 0 ).
Vase o f the G erm a n o -

R o m a n period (left)
found at B asenh eim ,
near K o blen z, in 1 5 6 3 .
D eco ra ted in silver, this
vase is capped by a
bell-shap ed lid. O n its
crest a putto holds like
vases took place in May, doubtless because at that time o f year vege shields tw o coins, one
o f G alba and the other
tation growth revealed observable anomalies (greater density o f veg of O th o (68—9 ad ). A
etation or different soil colour). It was not the earth that gave up the dedication in scribed on
th e vase specifies that
antiquities, but men w ho invented observation methods w hich ‘this antique vase was
allowed the discovery o f remains. Even if this shocks our modern found on the lands o f
the noble and em in en t
concept o f archaeology, the pastor’s theory was not absurd and poses A n th o n i W aldposten o f
a fundamental question for the epistemology o f archaeology. T h e B asen h eim w ith a pot
and earthen b o ttle in a
observer detects an anomaly in the earth — colour variation or vineyard w here there
change in relief or in the vegetation cover, the presence o f tiles, were o th er vases o f the
same sort, |...| two
sherds or flints — and he makes an archaeological deduction which cop p er fibulae used by
he labels site, burial, settlement. B u t are these the primary indices the A ncients [...] and
everything rem aining
(due to the direct action o f the people who produced them), or the
in the earth fo r many
secondary (due to erosion, to soil movements)? Should one relate a hundred years. Found
at the end o f April
climatic piece o f data (more vases found in the spring) to a modifi
1 5 6 3 bv an inhabitant
cation o f surface contours — a modern hypothesis — or to an internal o f B asenh eim .’
147
D raw in g o f the change in soil composition? The error made by Mathesius is proven,
excavation ot a
but it is rich in implications.
R o m a n castcllwn at
B e n n in g en , in T h e interest o f the curious, the princes and the learned for funer
W iirttem b e rg , made
ary urns was a constant in sixteenth-century archaeology. T h e recur
by S im on Stud ion in
15 9 7 . T h is plan rent finds, notably on the sites o f Maslow and Gryzyce in Silesia,
indicates a desire to
were the most famous. In 1546 the Em peror Ferdinand I dispatched
place the m on u m en t
in its geographical a com m ission o f enquiry to Maslow, and in 1577 the Em peror
setting.
Rudolph II undertook research at Gryzyce. Delighted by the discov
ery o f urns, Rudolph had a wooden column erected on the site as a
memorial o f the excavation.35 This interest was assuredly linked to
the development and function o f cabi-
g. nets o f antiquities, which illustrated as it
^ ■
’St-. were by endorsem ent the story o f the
taste for antiquities.
THE ARCHAEOLOGY
OF ARCHAEOLOG Y
T h e W u n derkam m er
B efore considering how the Scandina

vian antiquaries managed to synthesise
the archaeological knowledge o f the
Renaissance by integrating its diverse
branches into an organic w hole which
paid as m uch attention to material
sources as to written tradition, it is useful
to pause for a m om ent over the picture
o f European archaeology at the end o f
the sixteenth century.
D raw ings o f the Let us imagine the history o f archaeology as a stratigraphy. It
excavation o f the
reveals to the observer the recent layers, juxtaposed according to
theatre at Augst, made
by Basilus Am erbach national influences, as well as an ancient foundation form ed by a
in 158 2 . T h ese
com m on tradition. T h e oldest layers are those o f the medieval oral
excavations at Augst,
near Basle, were and w ritten tradition: the ‘giants’ footsteps’, the ‘sorcerers’ beds’, cor
probably the first in responding to the scattered presence across the European landscape
Europe to be organised
by a public institution o f megaliths and tumuli w hich appeared, as we have seen, in
(m unicipal cou n cil). medieval iconography but o f which the illustrators o f the sixteenth
T h e surveys w ere as
precise as those o f the
century were especially fond. T h e oldest ‘m odern’ image o f Stone
R o m a n antiquaries. henge is a watercolour by Lucas de Heere, a Dutchm an who was
148
2 — THH E U R O P H OF T H E A N T I Q U A R I E S
w ts y w iu s .
3 1 4 3 ,5
^
' 0 1 ^
O t^l £ N S ,
149
also responsible for drawings com paring the ancient B ritons to

American Indians.36 T h e watercolour illustrates a manuscript which
is a description o f the British Isles, a sort o f geographical inventory
o f curiosa. It consists o f a very simple overall view o f the site; a horse
man is shown at the centre o f the stone circle. T he image is precise
but immediate, like a rapid sketch.Very different is the engraving o f
Stonehenge o f 1575, now in the British Museum, and signed by the
unknown artist concealed by the initials R .F.; here, as with Lucas de
Heere, is the circular setting neatly enclosed by a little wall. At the
centre and to the left people are visiting the site. The entire drawing
exudes a peaceful rural air. This is not a
‘scientific’ study meant as an objective
view' o f the site, but a picturesque descrip
tion with a particular charm for us, since it
shows diggers attacking the earth with
shovels 011 a little hillock in front o f the
m onum ent. O ne detail hits the mark:
before them are two crossed femurs and a
skull. It is exactly the same image, only
slightly modified, which opens one o f the
first illustrated editions of C am den’s B r i
tannia, although at the centre o f that
T h e Site of Stonehenge, image, above the cartouche containing the caption, a figure dressed
w atercolou r by Lucas
as a Tudor gentleman points out the viewTto the spectator.
de H eere, 1574.
Let us compare these images with those o f Jelling, in Jutland,
executed in 1591 at the instigation o f the provincial governor,
H. Rantzau. T h e style is much colder, almost anatomical: between
the two royal tumuli o f the kings o f Denm ark are drawn a church
and a votive stone with a runic inscription; this is transcribed and
translated in the im age’s cartouche. O ther details confirm the desire
for scientific abstraction: the analysis o f the landscape and com m en
taries on each o f the m onum ents, the m arking o f the cardinal
points, the epigraphical commentary. T h e image reveals the differ
ence in approach between the two types o f antiquary. For the Eng
lish, a picturesque interest in a m onum ent w hich was not easy to
date and interpret; for the Danes, a technique o f analysis o f inscrip
tions linked to an interest in the landscape, w hich established a
continuity between archaeological enquiry and epigraphic sources.
I f the Scandinavian antiquaries went further and faster than their
European colleagues, it is because they could apply their knowledge
150
to a much closer past, for w hich they sensed a formal continuity

with the present.
Betw een these picturesque and technical images o f the m onu
ments and the fantastic fairy houses published by Picardt almost a
century later, it is easy to im agine the gu lf w hich separated the
antiquaries from the old beliefs. B u t for some scholars these beliefs
coexisted with a highly practical scientific approach. This state o f
The Site o f Stonehenge,

engraving signed R .F .,
1 5 7 5 .T his view o f
S to n eh en g e served as
a m odel fo r the
frontispiece to
C am d en ’s Britannia in
1 6 0 0 (see p. 16).
affairs derived, as we have seen, from the Lusatian urns or the local
ceramics o f the R o m an period, or even later: whilst critical minds
had long held these to be archaeological remains, there were always
people who regarded them as traces o f the dwarves who inhabited
the depths o f the earth, or as the natural product o f strange tel
lurian phenonem a. Vases, urns and ollae were the types o f remains
most often seen in central Europe on the sites o f the great proto-
historic necropoli. ‘Ceraunites’, ‘glossopetri’ and ‘thunderbolts’ (in
reality flint tools/weapons) were represented in most cabinets o f
curiosities. T h eir m ythological identification went back to ancient
authors such as Pliny or V arro37 but the tradition was maintained
up until the eighteenth century and beyond. However, M ichele
M ercati, director o f the Vatican botanical garden, had already posed
the correct question in the sixteenth century:
T he ‘ceraunitc’ is common in Italy; it is often called an ‘arrow ’ and is
m odelled from thin, hard flint into a triangular point. O pinion is divided on
151
T h e sice o fje llin g ,

published by Peter
Lin debcrg in 1591.
D o n e at the request
o f H ein rich R an tzau ,
g ov ern or of the
province o f H olstein,
this illustration is
accom panied by
tech n ical descriptions,
w h ich attest to a
quasi-anatom ical
analvsis o f the
m onu m ents. T h e
votive stone, situated T YPVSALP.HA.BETI
R « tD » r » # » « ; th lp y r v YM * tn T itn tf* R « ttan«r. Anjfwr
betw een the tw o tttmm D m S e a eJ j ^ i t f «« o j y r j t t i Nomtyttr « ix ; area
J IN S C R IP T IO M O N V M E7JTIG O RM O N IS IN PARVO LAJPIDE, T T R /L V X O RI P O S IT I annum D "‘ 9^ '
tum uli o f the kings o f bi»RM ; KM.f>.
G o rtn a KemaUja ■ ji o r a a R o ir difsr ^ fu /r T t y r t Kona-
D en m ark, bears runic A L IA IN SC R IP T IO M O N V M E N T I H A R A L D I REGIS PARENTIBVS SVIS GORM ONJ ET TYRA. POSIT}
inscriptions translated * . * R r r-T R ; : k i*R 9 : r n r r : h h : /■i\ r ; -r p -t : p f - m i : i w R a i -Pi * :
J fa r a t A K on a Sat XHtrtKt X y if fo r tffatr <jorm F a Jtr sm o ff oû<r Tyrf Muttn- sms/
at the b o tto m o f the Yfhh'. iW l ; f l f f R I ',
'C;ru< ifc r n sf f u ,r D a n m a rd c .
drawing.
the subject. M any believe that they are cast down by lightning; yet those who
study history judge that before the use o f iron they were struck from very
hard flint for the folly o f war. Indeed, for the most ancient peoples, pieces o f
flint served as knives.™
W hat is striking about the history o f the interpretation o f flints,
pottery, megaliths and tumuli is the perfect parallelism o f interpreta
tions. Against the mythological tradition a small number o f scholars
produced convincing theories, but these were never fully accepted
by the learned world. This duality between knowledge and tradition
constitutes the foundation, the oldest layer in our vertical section
through the archaeology o f the sixteenth century. Closer to the sur
face com e archaeological practices. These can be divided into dis
tinct regional schools, which form contemporary deposits that are
not, however, composed o f the same sediments. The Italian layer is
dominated at the outset by the rediscovered antiquity w hich
em erged under the picks o f the builders o f m odern R o m e . T h e
Italians benefited from three advantages. Firstly, the cities o f Padua,
B ologn a, R o m e and Naples constituted centres o f intellectual,
artistic and philological activity: artists and antiquaries gathered,
engaged by kings, princes and cardinals to classify, restore and study
their collections, and to collaborate in urban and architectural pro
jects. And in Italy Humanist culture was at home: attention to the
earth and the collection o f remains were prompted as much by
necessity as curiosity, and philogical, pictorial and architectural
knowledge was immediately available. Finally, the straightforward
152
history o f Italian towns was inseparable from the history o f the

G raeco-R om an world.
It was not the same in France, England, central or northern
Europe. In these four cultural zones — assessed a little arbitrarily —
history was there to be conquered, founded and established on foun
dations newly liberated from the weighty presence o f the Trojans and
the tribes o f Israel (this was not always the case, however, as we shall
see in the work o f the Swede, O lo f R u d beck ). In these circum
stances the antiquaries naturally tended to con
struct an anachronic history, which started with
the present in order — with the help o f rare
Addere hue
ancient texts — to establish the lineaments o f an cuit typum Py
adpagum N or
ancient history which jo in ed up with medieval f t x in nieraori
DanixRegum ,
infcriptio indi
history. From this process derived the key role o f
particular Latin texts — Caesar for France and
England, Tacitus for the Germ anic and even the
Slavic world (to the degree to w hich the Slavic
identity rested on the recognition o f traits charac
teristic o f the ancient populations o f central
Europe). But the texts were few, and the first anti
quaries o f the sixteenth century were above all
epigraphers. To their marvelling eyes arose the vast
m em ory o f R om an epigraphy, or the runic stelae
which graced the Scandinavian churches. H ow
ever, the epigraphers province was not limited to
a display case, he had to go out into the field;
peregrination replaced the promenades o f the Votive pyramid o f H ein rich Rantzau , governor
of the province o f H olstein. In m em o ry o f the
R om an antiquaries. Marschalk, Peiresc, Camden
kings o f D en m ark, R an tzau raised in 1 5 7 8 . on
and in particular O le W orm in Denm ark and his ow n estate, a votive pyramid w hich bears the
follow ing Latin in scrip tio n :‘T h e year 5 5 4 0 since
Johan Bure in Sweden were indefatigable travellers
the creation o f the world, the year 3 4 8 4 since
who found their own reasons to traverse the land the Flood, the year 15 7 8 since the birth o f
scape and above all to observe it. In the country C h rist, the year 9 8 5 since the birth o f
M ahom et.'
side o f temperate Europe, with the exception o f
R om an towns w hich had partly retained their fortifications and
monuments, it was necessary to use on e’s eyes to identify megaliths
and tumuli, to observe the ground to distinguish deserted villages or
necropoli. Peregrination, chorology, geography — these were familiar
words to the antiquaries o f the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
whose inquisitiveness m atched that o f the learned, the scientists,
astronomers, mathematicians and botanists who abandoned their
153
libraries to observe the earth and the sky. Stuart Piggott emphasises
that ‘surveying’ was part o f the culture o f gentlem en who had
received their training at the Inns o f C ourt, the English law
schools.39 A new type o f antiquary linked to the rural world
appeared: gentry, townsmen and even farmers, preoccupied with
their harvests and the administration o f their land. These antiquaries
did not exercise their learning in the service o f a
prince or royal administration, or if they were
given this role - as when Camden was created a
herald — it was because o f success in their peregri
nations. For these men excursion, travel on foot or
horseback into the countryside, was both a second
education and a pleasure. Thus in 1621, R o b e rt
Burton states in his A natom y o f M elancholy:
W hat more pleasin g studies can there be than the
M athem aticks, T heorick or Practick parts? A s to survey
land, m ake mapps, models, dials &c., with which I have
ever much delighted myself.40
There were, o f course, notable differences from
one country to another. T h e British, following
Cam den’s national and regional tradition, excelled
in archaeological cartography, in the description o f
the landscape and the listing o f monuments. T he
C E R A V N IA central European antiquaries were more active in
excavation and attempts at ethnic interpretation o f
R ep resen tatio n s o f the remains found in the earth (the influence o f Tacitus). T h e
different ‘cerau nites’,
French, with the notable exception o f Peiresc, were more interested
from th e first edition
in 1 7 1 7 o f the in cabinets o f curiosities, in the cataloguing o f ‘thunderbolts’, coins
Metallotheca Vaticana,
and inscriptions, than in traversing the countryside. In France, his
w ritten by M ich ele
M ercati in 1 5 7 0 .T h e tory remained dominated by the w ritten model evident in all the lit
learned Italian
erature concerning the Gauls. Perhaps, as has been seen, because too
explained that these
alleged ‘th un derbolts’ m uch was asked o f the Gauls — w hether they were German or
were in tact flints
Rom an, Catholic or Protestant, royalist or republican — the antiqui
w orked by the hand
of m an. ties offered less help than the texts. This archaeology o f archaeology,
as far as it can be taken, could yet reveal infinite variations in a world
where relationships in the field o f scientific enquiry were astonish
ingly close (let us remember that a direct or indirect correspondence
linked Camden, Peiresc, Rubens, W orm , Gassendi and Galileo) but
where the small numbers o f the learned made for the halting devel
opment o f specific disciplines, as one sees yet again with the prema
154
2 - THE EUROPE OE T H E ANTIQUARIES
ture disappearance o f Peiresc. As ever, to com plete the ‘sectional

view’ o f the subject, we must turn to Scandinavia, which had seen
the birth o f a new mode o f archaeological practice, and because it
was there, for the first time in European history, that the state was
given not only to legislation on the conservation o f the past but also
to the creation o f archaeological institutions.
T h e cab inet o f
M ic h e le M ercati. In
1 5 8 5 M ercati created
o n e o f the first
m ineralogical cabinets
in Europe. T h is gallery
follow ed an ordered
architectural
arrangem ent w h ich
distinguished betw een
m inerals on one side
and metals on the
other.
155
THE SCANDINAVIANS
THE BIRTH OF LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY
T h e s y n th e s is o f th e a r c h a e o lo g ic a l k n o w le d g e
o f th e R e n a is s a n c e
In the snow -bound N orth the past does not reveal itself in the
friendly way that belongs to temperate lands. T h e scholars o f the
northern Renaissance lacked not only the rich resources o f the Ital
ian and German monasteries, but also the continuity that R om an
ruins at Trier, Basle and, o f course, in Provence and Italy, established
with the distant past o f ancient R om e.
But for those who took the trouble to look at the landscape, the
earth revealed its secrets: megaliths, barrows and even runic inscrip
tions (the first Scandinavian writing) were everywhere. At the end o f
the twelfth century Saxo Grammaticus had already noted strange
monuments here and there:
In the distant p ast there were giants, an ancient p eo p le w hose existence
is attested by the massive stones which form ed the roofs o f burial monuments
and dolm ens. S hou ld anyone doubt that these arc the w ork o f giants,
they shou ld tell us w ho else could have p la ced such enorm ous blocks in
such p osition s ,41
Contemporary theologians agreed that the Goths, ancestors o f the
Scandinavians, were descended from Gog, the heir o f Japhet, and this
biblical authentication was not lost on the medieval population.
In 1434 at the Council o f Basle, Nicolaus Ragvald, the Swedish
Bishop o f Viixjo, successfully claimed precedence over his brethren
as representative o f the oldest race in Europe, disputed only by a
Spanish bishop in the name o f the Visigoths.42 This form o f historical
legitim ation continued into the Renaissance, as shown by learned
clerics such as Olaus and Johannes Magnus, Swedes loyal to the pope
and exiled to R o m e by the R eform ation. Olaus Magnus, Bishop o f
Uppsala, used his enforced leisure to write one o f the first historical,
geographical and ethnographical descriptions o f the Nordic people.
His book, published in R o m e in 1555, is lavishly illustrated with
engravings which reveal an extraordinary vision o f the Scandinavian
countryside: forests o f megaliths, barrows, stones with runic inscrip
tions, pictures o f dwarves and elves m ining precious metals. This
humanist scholar stayed close to medieval tradition:‘In ancient times,
156
2 - THE EUROPE OE T H E ANTIQUARIES
when giants lived in N orthern lands, well before the Latin alphabet
was invented [...], the kingdoms o f the N orth had their own w rit
ing.’43
Olaus Magnus was indeed a Humanist with wide experience o f
the classical tradition but he did not test the available evidence
against the texts in the manner o f the Italian and German scholars o f
the time. H e concentrated on the distinctiveness o f the Nordic land
scape, on the monuments and inscriptions, which he sought to inter
pret not for their own sakes but in relation to
classical tradition: giants and runes attested to the
antiquity o f the Nordic peoples at a time before
w riting was known to G reece or R o m e. At this
time Olaus Petri, the great reform er o f the
Swedish church,44 was more critical in his
approach to northern history, calling for a system
atic treatment o f documents, archives and inscrip
tions. H e was cautious on the question o f origins
and refused to pronounce on the dubious primacy
o f the Danes and Swedes.
However, it was not until the end o f the six
teenth century that people began the systematic
collection o f Nordic antiquities and started to link
knowledge o f sources with travel — so dear to the
R om an and B ritish antiquaries. H einrich
Rantzau, Governor o f H olstein, commissioned
richly detailed engravings o f the Jelling barrows.
In 1588 he also organised an excavation o f the
Langben Rises H oj dolmen, to the north o f Roskilde, in search o f Frontispiece o f
Diwiconim
the giants.45 M ore ambitious projects were undertaken by more rig
M ouiimeittontm L ibri
orous minds. O ne such was Johan Bure, son o f a pastor in Uppsala Sex by O le W o rm ,
published in 1 643.
and educated within a strict classical tradition, who in addition to his
T h e association here
Latin and Greek had taught him self Hebrew. In 1 602 he became of the G ra e c o -R o m a n
tradition w ith the
tutor to Crown Prince Gustavus Adolphus, future king o f Sweden
Scandinavian and
and one o f the greatest w arriors o f the century. In the fervid biblical traditions
intellectual and nationalistic climate o f the Swedish court, Bure soon rem inds o ne that the
story o f antiquity was
turned to the decipherm ent o f runes. This was no novelty — after n ot lim ited to the
all runic characters were still being carved on funerary and reli G ra e c o -R o m a n
tradition.
gious monuments in some parts o f Sweden — but Bure was one o f
the first to collect and systematically analyse the ancient inscriptions.
He established a precise alphabet, suggested rules for transcription,
157
proposed a dating system and, above all, undertook a corpus o f

Swedish inscriptions. From 1599 Bure, with two assistants, organised
regular topographic and archaeological surveys. By comparison with
Camden in Great B ritain his methods were not original, but they
are distinguished by the care devoted to the illustrations and the
attention given to the epigraphy, the recording o f w hich was the
main purpose o f his travels. At a stroke he transformed the traditional
antiquarian tour into a systematic study — the first professional
archaeological survey. His personal links w ith the Swedish court
provided resources o f which his contemporaries could only dream:
royal commissions, the help o f artists
and engravers and, especially, the
unswerving support o f the monarch.
T h e results were staggering. In a
few years Bure and his team recorded
a quarter o f the known inscriptions
in Sweden. T he kingdom o f Sweden
was thus the first state to endow an
archaeological service which fore
shadowed in many ways the role o f
our m odern agencies. B u re’s success
would not have been complete with
out one vital factor — com petition. At
the beginning of the seventeenth century Swedes and Danes were Forest o f signs, w ood
engraving from
locked in keen political and diplomatic rivalry. T he two double
Historic bv Olaus
monarchies (Denmark—Norway, Sweden—Finland) were determined M agnus, 156 7 . B o th
p rehistoric remains
to create an image o f their past appropriate to their political and
and m edieval burials
diplomatic roles in a w ar-torn Europe. History played a vital part in were attributed to the
the great diplomatic game between the two kingdoms, and in Scan a n cient Scandinavians:
they constituted a
dinavia archaeology was the handmaiden o f history. T h e decipher kind o f repertory o f
ment o f the runes allowed the reading o f the earliest records o f the architectural form s
em bed ded in the
northern kingdoms, and the country-w ide corpus revealed monu landscape like
ments w hich, while less familiar to scholars, were assuredly as spec en igm atic letters.
tacular as the ruins o f R om an towns.
Two views o f the Scandinavian countryside: w ood engravings illustrating Olaus M agnus’ Historia,
15 6 7 . M agnus w ondered w h eth er the standing stones o f the N orw eg ian m ountains were the
w ork o f pagans or giants. H e attributed to the same giants the m egaliths and stone alignm ents o f
Sw eden. O le K lin d t-jen sen has, however, emphasised th e visionary nature o f the author, w ho was
already preoccup ied by the protection o f antiquities: the ru n ic in scription below the altar reads
‘R e sp e ct the antiquities'.
159
THE D IS CO V ER Y OE T H E PAST
TRAVELLING THROUGH TIME
O l e W o rm
It was to be a Dane who made the next important contribution to

the new science which linked the antiquarian tour to survey, collec
tion and interpretation. O le W orm was born in Aarhus in 1588 and
was educated to the highest standards o f the time. After college in
Aarhus he went on to the Johanneum in Liineburg, a noted centre o f
classical studies, frequently attending lectures at the Stiftschule in
Em m erich, a Jesuit institution which accepted Protestants. After this
solid grounding, W orm embarked on an extensive period o f travel
and study (mainly o f medicine) in Europe which took him as far as
Italy — to Padua (where the young Peiresc had preceded him by sev
eral years) then to R o m e and Naples. His appetite for knowledge
was matched by a taste for collecting everything. Like Peiresc he did
not restrict him self to antiquities but was intent on a reference col
lection w hich brought together medical and philological material
and reunited tiatumlia with artificiosa. In Naples he was an avid visitor
to the cabinet o f antiquities form ed by Ferrante Imperato, one o f the
most noted collectors o f the time. His contacts with the school of
‘chemical science’ created by Pierre La R am ee (Petrus Ramus) - the
then expert on ‘Gaulish antiquities’ — secured introductions every
where, in Paris and also in M ontpellier, where he stayed during
1609—10. W ith all Europe his classroom he spent time in Kassel,
then a noted intellectual venue under the patronage o f P rince
M oritz o f Hesse, and in H eidelberg, Amsterdam and London. In
1613 this international scholar became Professor o f Latin at the U n i
versity o f Copenhagen. Here he would exercise an unmatched influ
ence on the human and natural sciences. At the time the university
was undergoing reform , with the keen support o f W orm. B y turn
Professor o f Latin, Greek, Physic and M edicine, from 1622 he threw
him self into the study o f runes. His extensive correspondence, quite
as brilliant as that o f Peiresc, reveals his unflagging curiosity in the
fields o f natural history and antiquity. Among his regular correspon
dents we find members o f Peiresc’s circle: Pietro Gassendi, Gabriel
Naude and Lapeyrere.
D anicom m M onumcntorum L ibri Sex, six volumes on Danish m onu
ments, was published in Copenhagen in 1643. It is a general treatise
on Danish antiquities, which made a name for itself both for its
160
R e c o n s tru c tio n o f the

cabinet o f O le W orm ,
after the frontispiece
o f Musci IVoniiiiiiii
Historia. W o rm ’s
cabinet was his life's
work: it sym bolised a
vision o f the world
w hich established a
co n tin u u m betw een
anim al, vegetable and
m ineral.
161
THE DISCOVERY OF T H E P AS T
methodology and for the quality o f its illustrations. Th e first volume,

following the classical tradition, consists o f a definition o f the subject
but is effectively a veritable practical manual o f archaeology. M onu
ments, objects and text: the recollection o f the past is universal and it
is the antiquary’s task to perform a comparative ‘post-m ortem ’ on
these different historical sources. Any historian wishing to study
Nordic antiquities must have the courage to prefer national history
over that o f the classical world:
Because our antiquities seem intractable most o f us turn aside from our
patriotic duty and, neglecting our local antiquities devote ourselves to the f o r
eign, but to neglect the hom e ground in favour o f that which is far away, to
adhere to the distant at the expense o f the familiar, is vice not virtue. So it
naturally follows that the actions, rituals, customs, institutions, laws, victories,
triumphs and all those D anish achievements would be swallowed in d ark
ness and be consigned to oblivion for eternity.46
The work was cultural and patriotic. Antiquity was not restricted
to the G raeco-R om an tradition but must take into account domes
tic, or as we would now say, national remains. T he Danes were no
less worthy o f interest than other ancient nations. W orm did not
attempt to achieve the impossible in a complete catalogue o f all the
forms o f antiquity, but to record those antiquities w hich would
appeal to scholars by virtue o f their rarity, grandeur or great age.
Here the naturalist was at work as much as the philologist, creating
order in a vast and as yet unexplored material world. O bjects must
be classified by composition and above all, function. Antiquities were
defined by their purpose: sanctuaries, altars, tombs, epitaphs, public
places, circuses, boundaries and frontiers. This is a strange list, which
can only be taken as the application o f R om an categories to Danish
antiquities. In order to devise a descriptive system o f archaeology,
W orm drew upon the classical tradition. His methods reveal an obvi
ous contradiction between his desire to create a new discipline and
to reconcile this with the tradition o f Varro’s A nti quit ate s.41 Worm
never once questioned the validity o f establishing whether (or not)
institutions such as the R om an forum or circus existed in ancient
Scandinavia. His archaeology was based upon clear and identifiable
evidence in the landscape for activities seen as common to all soci
eties. The inventory had an underlying order: first ritual (monuments
and funerary practices), followed by records (inscribed on wood or
stone) and finally social m onum ents (fora, circuses, boundaries,
frontiers, sanctuaries). This was not the naive view o f a collector
162
acquiring whatever the ground might turn up, but a considered

attempt to make use o f tradition to read the landscape and decipher
the signs and inscriptions seen there. Worm went beyond the classifi
cation and interpretation o f remains, seeking to understand their
function and to link them to the landscape which he could observe.
Alter recalling the work o f his predecessors, especially that o f Olaus
Magnus, he noted that the remains o f the ‘pagan’ period were fewer
in Denm ark than in Sweden:
In D en m ark, so far as I know, there arc few ruins anywhere, perhaps
because our ancestors, once converted to Christian mysteries, sought every
means to eradicate the sham e of such idolatry and completely destroyed the
old cult places /.../ or that, they replaced them with temples to the true G od,
seeking to root out all memory of the false. Thus it. is not uncommon even
now to find the broken and scattered remains o f their altar-tables in the fields
and woods .48
I f archaeology began with the collecting o f antiquities, it came o f
age with their interpretation. W orm ’s originality lay in setting out
clear descriptive methods and in relating the monuments in their
landscape to the historical record. A rchaeological interpretation
needs a historical explanation o f the way in which knowledge sur
vives from the past. M onum ents do not remain in their original
state, and their preservation depends upon histories o f which archae
ology must take due account. W orm ’s scheme was progressive: after
defining the types o f m onument he studied successively sanctuaries,
divinities, sacrifices, standing stones and the m eeting places o f the
ancient Danes. In this way he created a new form o f antiquarian dis
course, revolutionary for its time. D escription and a ragbag o f
detailed observations were not enough — knowledge had to be
ordered into an intelligible system. This fundamental progress did
not see — as the sixteenth-century antiquaries did — the monuments
as disparate ciphers w hich had lost their meaning, but as missing
pieces o f the historical jigsaw. ‘T im e’s shipwreck’, a concept dear to
Bacon and Vossius49 might be salvaged; the jetsam on the shore o f
history could, i f properly interpreted, reveal facts, practices and
behaviour which could take us to the heart o f past societies.
Taking a new look at the world which surrounded him, the anti
quary discovered in the present the material remains o f the past and
in doing this freed himself, partially but decisively, from tradition.
From that time 0 11 , history 110 longer consisted o f interpreting
ancient texts but o f using monuments as a starting point for later —
163
and only later — drawing on tradition. In this sense W orm ’s method

was Baconian:
With regard to authority, it is the greatest weakness to attribute infinite
credit to particular authors, and to refuse his own prerogative to time, the
author o f all authors, and, therefore, of all authority. For truth is rightly
nam ed the daughter o f time, not o f authority.5"
T h e L ejre site, drawn

for O le W o rm in
1643.
T h e Jellin g site, drawn

for O le W o rm in
1 6 4 3 .Taken from
W o rm ’s Diviicotwn
Alouuwentorwii Libri
Sex, thi.s survey differs
a little from that o f
Ran tzau a few decades
earlier (see p. 152).
The exploration o f the soil is a voyage in time. For this there is no

need o f Latin or Greek sources, but an enquiring mind, a sharp eye, a
grasp o f landscape and a taste for drawing. W orm ’s work had greatly
impressed his contemporaries by the quality o f its descriptions and
the beauty and precision o f its plans and drawings. The royal site at
Lejre in Sjaelland was the subject o f an extraordinary topographic and
archaeological study. W orm ’s approach was not to start with a single
m onum ent as a means of constructing the history o f a place; he
inserted every particularity o f the site to create a complete view, ren
dering precisely the traits o f the landscape. Antiquaries in the Rom an
164
2 - THE EUROPE OP T H E ANTIQUARIES
tradition started with the m onum ent and finally put it in context.
The Scandinavian method, already apparent in Jelling’s recording for
Governor Rantzau, was wholly different. W orm ’s analysis o f the royal
site o f Lejre featured every detail o f the topography — lowlands, hills,
woods. Contemporary land-use was related to each monument:
A . T he monument o f H arald H yldetandi bounded to north and south by
large stones, in the centre a huge square block resting on smaller stones.
B. A rea o f stones, the summit almost entirely occupied by a slab o f rock in
the shape o f a chair; the people call it ‘Droningstolen’, the Q u een ’s
throne, where according to tradition the Queen presided, wearing the
im perial diadem.
C. T he form er site o f the royal palace, still known as ‘Konigsgarden’.
0 . T he place o f coronation, enclosed by a ring o f stones. N earby is hill D,
where the newly crowned king stopped to be seen by the p eop le and
receive their fealty.
E . ‘ErtedaV in the woods, a pleasan t valley thought to be nam ed after the
goddess H ertha.
F. L ejre’s river.
G. ‘S teen hoj’ hill.
FI. M onum ent and tomb of king Olaf.
1. ‘M aglebrae’, the main bridge.
K . Supposed site o f the kin g ’s stables, formely called ‘H estebierg’.
L. Place nam ed the royal foals, ‘F o leh o j’.
M . ‘K ir k e h o j’ where a temple stood, according to som e traditions.
N. ‘F riisshoj’.
P. R iver which crosses ‘K orn eru pio’, called ‘Kornerup A c ’.
A m odern reader would have difficulty in acknowledging the
constant confusion between the analysis o f the archaeological
remains and a mythical vision o f royal life. W orm ’s interpretation o f
the landscape was still within the medieval tradition when he identi
fied the queen’s throne and the royal coronation site, but it is consis
tent with an analysis o f the spectacle o f royal power which was still
favoured by modern day absolutist monarchs.
The work is inevitably o f its time, but beyond this historical con
ditioning there is much to admire: the global vision o f landscape, the
way in which practical survey drew upon tradition (place-names,
sagas) and the recording techniques. W orm in action rigorously fol
lowed the method set out in his famous letter o f 1638 to the Bishop
o f Stavanger in Norway, and which may be seen as a model for con
temporary archaeological travel.
165
THE DISCOVERY O F THE, P A S T
T h e trium phal arch o f M axim ilian I accord ing to a sch em e by the arch itect K olderer
and A lb rech t D iirer, 1 5 1 5 —1 7 .T h e author o f Dcr Weisskimig (the sch olar-kin g or w h ite-k in g ),
M axim ilian I had this trium phal arch engraved in order to record on paper the glory w hich
he did n o t have the m eans to co m m em o rate in stone. His antiquary J. Stabius had w ritten
a com m en tary in rhym ing verse w hich dem onstrated each o f the em peror's activities,
in clud ing architecture, the learning ot languages, heraldry and collectin g . M axim ilian
had dreamt o f an arch aeological and h istorical description o f a G erm an y to w hich
the greatest scholars ot the tim e, Stabius, Konrad C eltis,
W ilibald Pirckh eim er, had to co n tribu te.
166
COLLECTION AND CLASSIFICATION
A n in s t r u m e n t o f l e a r n i n g a n d e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n
T h eo ry and practice in the field qualify Bure and W orm as the

founders o f a landscape archaeology which is the forerunner o f our
modern surveys. T h e innovation lay not solely in the examination,
cataloguing and plotting o f each site, but in the topographical
approach, in the attention paid to the drawings and in the care taken
with publication. From start to finish, W orm was in charge o f a chain
o f complementary operations which could not be carried out by any
one person, but which demanded a degree o f collaboration and co
operation facilitated by the extent o f his knowledge, his offices and
his international contacts. W orm sought to win the Danish and for
eign diplomats he met to his cause, he mobilised the bishops, the
ministers and the king’s representatives in far-flung provinces. I f nec
essary he did not hesitate to use his authority. W orm was not only a
thinker, he was also a collector in the best Humanist tradition, eager
to know and to classify all the curious objects which chance and
enthusiasm brought before him.
T h e passion for collecting, perfectly demonstrated by Pomian, is as D etail o f th e trium phal
arch o f M axim ilian I.
ancient as human curiosity. D uring the sixteenth century scholars M ax im ilian ’s co llectio n
and the nobility began to assemble collections which were not was n o t m ade for
display but to be
merely treasures, but had a didactic function in terms o f an ordered
hidden in a side room ,
explanation o f the world. A difficult problem indeed — to classify hardly accessible.
such a diverse range o f sem iophores, whose place

in a collection was won primarily because they
were curious, precious or rare. Barbara Balsiger
has clearly demonstrated how the classification
process answered a philosophical imperative:
concentrate the maximum number o f objects, as
diverse as possible, into the minimum amount o f
space. T h e collection is a m icrocosm o f the
world, interpreted as a macrocosm. These efforts
led directly to a redefinition o f collecting: this
was an age o f scepticism. T h e sem iophore can
invoke the invisible; it is beyond time and space, V on
a fragile link with a lost and frequently poorly
understood world. T h e attraction o f collecting,
in P o m ia n ’s sense, lay in the m etaphysical
167
T h e cab in et o f consequences o f that reductionist process. There are many ways o f

Ferrante Im perato, a
‘harvesting’ objects.
place from his Natural
H istory, 1599. The princely and royal courts were particularly proud o f the repu
tation attached to their treasures. They were enriched by a variety o f
political and econom ic transactions. But beside the traditional areas
o f com petition for those things already deemed to be collectable,
there were other things which entered the arena by dint o f a catholic
approach to acquisition —things which were diverted from their cus
tomary use, or plucked from the oblivion into which they had fallen.
T h e sixteenth-century vogue for Am erican objects was o f that
nature, like the collection o f types o f fossils, mineralogical samples
and, o f course, archaeological and ethnographic objects. This transfer
o f interests and awakening o f new tastes made room for another sort
o f collection: ‘We are not dealing w ith the appearance o f new
objects, but with a new class o f sem iophores composed o f objects
undergoing study which takes its place alongside existing classes.’ 51
Beside the relics or other precious materials which had hitherto
form ed the heart o f every great collection there appeared objects
T h e cab in et o f whose interest lay in what they revealed about the past or present, be
Francesco C alzolari,
it in their appeal to the senses (such as statues and paintings), or in
a plate from Museum
Calceolarium . 1622. their intrinsic qualities as objects o f learning (such as scientific
instruments). Certainly the precious or sacred nature o f items was a
necessary feature o f a collection, but at the same time the collection
itself became a mechanism for the generation o f knowledge. In 1565
Samuel von Q uicchelberg, a doctor from Antwerp and friend o f the
Duke o f Bavaria, had already expounded his theory on the subject.
In the work which he published that year he introduced the first
imaginary museum in history to the world o f learning. His aim was
to construct a scaled-down model, a structured sample, o f the mater
ial world. Q uicchelberg’s book was the guide to a virtual collection
used as an aid to learning and experim entation. H e divided the
objects into five sections w hich, materially and intellectually, struc
tured his imaginary museum .52
T he first was devoted to a history o f the museum, to the images,
maps and models which establish collections in time and space. The
second dealt with artijiciosa: statues, stones, architectural fragments,
metal objects, coins, pictures, engravings. T he third, naturalia: the
animal, vegetable and mineral world. The fourth, instrumenta: objects
or m achinery from musical instrum ents to cloth es, inclu ding
m easuring and surgeons’ instruments, hunting equipm ent and agri-
168
THE D IS CO V ER Y OF T H F PAST
cultural tools. The fifth and final section was devoted to conceptual
figures and symbols, from images to inscriptions.
Q u icch elberg ’s scheme was both a research programme and a
teaching model, which allowed one to explore the whole microcosm
o f the museum in order to experience the macrocosm which was
the world. The visitor’s route was set, taking him from the simple to
the com plex, from the actual to the perceived. Behind the exhibition
lay a philosophy o f knowledge. Q uicchelberg’s work was a theoreti
cal model, an abstract construct w hich, however, gave a vivid picture
o f the upheavals which affected collectors during the sixteenth cen
tury. This is echoed in works preceding the M useum Wormianum that
would have been known to W orm.
Ferrante Im perato’s N atu ral H istory was published in Naples in
1599. It was effectively a catalogue o f naturalia: animal, vegetable and
mineral. T he M useum Calceoiarium was published in Verona in 1622
by two doctor colleagues o f the collector. W hile its scheme was
more com plex than that o f Im perato, it still dealt with the three
orders o f nature. These compendia were very different from the six-
teenth-century works — new attention was given to the quality o f
the engravings, the anatomical detail o f plant and animal drawings,
the accuracy o f the illustrations. As a doctor W orm no doubt took
these works as models; comparing the frontispiece o f the M useum
Wormianum with those o f its predecessors, one can only be struck by
the similarities. Each book opens with a view o f the museum which
is a graphic transcription o f the microcosm. Each perspective drawT-
ing is a kind o f panoptic vision, in which the eye picks up the major
divisions o f the collection which mirror those o f knowledge. O ne
has only to compare the frontispieces o f the books by Ferrante
Imperato and Francesco Calzolari with the W underkammer (‘cabinet
o f rarities’) o f Maximilian I to gauge the difference between the col
lections o f the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Dim ly lit by a
skylight, housed in a vaulted room , the Em peror’s treasure is a
jum ble o f chests, precious vases, jewels, models and relics — the eye
has almost to force entry into the picture. There is, however, a cer
tain order to the engraving (executed by an artist o f Albrecht D iirer’s
circle): in the middle are the chests, the first o f which is open; to the
left, the sumptuous plate; in the background, the relics; to the right,
the jew els, crowns and insignia o f knighthood, with the Golden
Fleece in the centre. N ot one antiquity, animal or plant is figured;
even i f these o b je c ts, perceiv ed as cu riosa or an tiq u ita tes, were
170
T h e cab inet o f
Ferdinando C o sp i,
a plate from M usco
Cospiim o, 167 7 .
collected — and we know this from the inventories — they were not
deemed worthy to appear in the engraving.
B y contrast, Ferrante Im perato’s museum vaunts a desire for
knowledge. Gentlemen could visit a beautifully paved, luxuriously
furnished hall. Dozens o f marine creatures are suspended from the
ceiling, surrounding an enorm ous stuffed crocodile. O n the left,
opened secretaires reveal specimens o f all kinds, carefully housed in
boxes and bags, and on the right a library occupies any free space.
‘C ollection ’ no longer meant treasures gleaming in the half-dark o f a
cellar — now it was on open view, in daylight, intelligently arranged
to take advantage o f the space, the furniture and the light in order to
produce a didactic effect. T he same effect was achieved by the fron
tispiece o f the M useum Calceoiarium . Terrestrial and marine animals
hang from the ceiling; in the centre is a kind o f altar decorated with
a pediment and Ionic columns, offering a series o f niches which
probably contained various specimens. To the right and left are alter
nate displays o f vessels, books, coins, boxes. To enter a collector’s cab
inet was to acquire some o f that learning oneself; the open drawers
and untidy books suggest the orderly chaos that is the mark o f the
learned owner. Inside the cabinet there was no longer the sense o f
some dim, sacred presence; instead there was the invisible, impalpable
activity o f the intellect.
The frontispiece o f the M useum Wormianum clearly belongs to this
tradition: the same taste tor animals hung from the ceiling, the com
partments, the tangle o f naturalia and artificiosa. However, here the
171
T h e cabinet o fM a n fre d o Settala, a plate from M usiv, o C ak-ria ... del Sii>. C aiw nieo M anfredo Sctidlii, 1666.
1 72
173
THE D I S C O V E R Y OF T H E PAST
emphasis was more upon continuity between the different orders

rather than contrast. At the bottom right o f the engraving are all the
carefully labelled specimens: parts o f animals, shells, minerals and
plant material grouped by type; above, the smaller stuffed animals
alternate with sculptures and an assortment o f instruments; finally,
there are the larger animals, huge tortoises, polar bears, weapons,
machinery, clothing and even a life-size human being.
These introductory images cannot, o f course, be taken as a faithful
illustration o f the catalogues, but because they set out to give an idea
o f the whole collection they do reveal a choice and an intention.
T h e cabinet o f O n e’s first impression o f the M useum Wormianum is o f a microcosm
Athanasius K irch er,
in the tradition o f Quicchelberg, in which man occupies a decisive
engraving 1 6 7 8 .W ith
the fam ous Jesu it place. To W orm, artificiosa and naturalia were inseparable, their close
father Athanasius
and complementary nature derived from the link which united man
K ircher, the taste for
Egyptian antiquities and nature in the past. T h e originality which distinguished W orm
becam e fully
from his immediate predecessors as well as from the encyclopaedic
established in
collectin g : the obelisks works o f such as Konrad Gesner and Ulisse Aldrovandi stems from
w ere partly integrated his views on the relationship between nature and man. Th e first four
in to the furnishing.
sections o f the M useum W ormianum correspond to Q u icch elberg’s
scheme: mineral, vegetable and animal in deliberate sequence (nei
ther Imperato nor Calzolari employed such a progression).The same
methodical approach is evidenced in his Chapter IV, which is proba
bly the first general treatise on archaeological and ethnographic
material. W orm divided his artefacts into twelve classes: clay objects,
amber objects, stone objects, gold and silver objects, bronze and iron
objects, coins, glass and similar materials, objects made from plant
m aterials, w ooden objects, fructibus, objects made from animal
products and unclassifiable objects.
W orm had a methodical mind, but he was no revolutionary, and
his conservatism sometimes played odd tricks on him. H e still
believed in thunder-stones, something which M ichele M ercati had
rejected many years before. W orm did not possess M ercati’s talent for
interpretation, or the fondness for excavation shown by Germ an
prehistorians such as Nicolaus Marschalk. H e did have other quali
ties, though, which some o f his predecessors lacked. W orm combined
observation with organisation, and saw a project through from the
gathering o f inform ation to its publication. The breadth o f his learn
ing combined with the range o f his professional acquaintance have
justly earned him the title o f father o f the archaeology o f the Age o f
R eason. After his death the M useum W ormianum collection was
174
incorporated into the museum o f K ing Frederick III in C op en

hagen. W orm thus bequeathed to posterity a method (the analysis o f
the archaeological landscape), a collection which fulfilled the most
progressive criteria o f the time, and above all the idea that archaeol
ogy could, when necessary, make up for the absence o f texts and
inscriptions. T he careful study o f material remains, the detailed plot
ting o f finds and the survey o f m onu
ments, contributed to the birth o f a new
discipline in which history and natural
history com bined. Thanks to the work
o f Bure and W orm the Scandinavian
monarchs, and the scholarly concensus,
discovered that the earth responded to
interrogation. T h e lesson was under
stood: in 1622 Christian IV o f Denmark
passed the first edict concerning the
protection o f antiquities, and on 20 May
T h e cabinet o f 1630 Gustavus Adolphus published a statute covering Swedish antiq
Sam te-G en ev icv e,
uities. These actions marked the passing o f archaeology into the
engraving, 1 6 9 2 .T his
cab inet was o n e o f the public domain - for the first time beyond R o m e there was a her
m ost fam ous French
itage to defend.
cabinets o f the
seventeenth century. From the R om an antiquaries o f the Renaissance to the Scandina
vian scholars, from B iond o to W orm , the same spirit o f enquiry
motivated men in their study o f the material remains o f the past.
Observation, excavation and survey came to be established as a
method o f gaining historical knowledge. This materialist revolution
in history came about at the same time that the scientific world was
being rocked by experimentation and the discovery o f new worlds:
We must also take into consideration that many objects in Nature f i t to
throw light upon Philosophy have been exposed to our view and discovered
by means o f long voyages and travels, in which our times have abounded. It
w ould indeed be dishonourable to m ankind, i f the regions o f the material
globe, the Earth, the Sea, and Stars should be so prodigiously developed and
illustrated in our age, and yet the boundaries o f the Intellectual globe should
be confined to the narrow discoveries of the ancients.53
Patiently, the Humanists constructed their learning in the terri
tory once occupied by the myths o f ancient history, where tales o f
demons and elves had held sway. That learning was not just an explo
ration (to use B acon ’s term), but strove to becom e an explanation.
T h e Scandinavian antiquaries, perhaps because they were in more o f
176
a hurry than the others to take advantage o f new historical

resources, were the first to attempt a synthesis in collecting and
interpretation. These new resources, w hich they fell upon with a
beginner’s enthusiasm, enabled them to write a history quite differ
ent from that o f the Greeks and R om ans, one w hich had to be
coaxed out o f the earth and the landscape. D uring the second half o f
the seventeenth century a new generation would set to work.
W orm ’s achievement was at once the last ripple o f the Renaissance
and the prelude to a new literary genre: the manual o f antiquities.
1 O le n d er 1989. 31 Ibid.
2 B eau n e 1 9 85, p. 19. 32 Ibid., p. 12.
3 D uch esn e, ‘Les Com m entaires de C esar 3 3 Ibid., p. 16.
en fran(ais', B N F R , 38. 3 4 Sklenar 1 9 8 3 , p. 36.
4 M o m ig lian o 1 9 8 3 , p. 25 0 . 3 5 Stem m erm an n 1 9 3 4 , p. 77;
5 M andow sky 1 9 63, p. 14. G u m m el 1 9 3 8 , p. 21.
6 Lanciani 1 9 02, l ,p . 166. 3 6 P iggott 1990, p. 75.
7 W atagliin 1 9 84, p. 197. 3 7 See chapter one, p. 68.
8 M anu script o f Naples X I I I B 7, pi. cited 38 M etallotheai, X I I , chapter 16.
in M andow sdy 19 6 3 , pp. 4 9 - 5 0 . 3 9 P iggott 1 9 7 6 , p. 111.
9 G olzio 1 9 3 6 , pp. 8 2 - 9 2 . 4 0 Ibid.
10 Ibid., p. 8. 41 Saxo G ram m aticus 1911, p. 23.
11 Ibid., p. 5 . 4 2 K lm dt-Jen sen 1 9 7 5 , p. 1 1;
12 Ibid., pp. 3 5 - 5 1 . Svennung 196 7 , p. 34.
13 A gostm o 1 5 87, p. 3 7 7 . 4 3 M agnus 1 5 6 7 , p. 41.
14 Ibid., p. 117. 44 Petri 1917.
15 B eau n e 19 8 5 , p. 33. 4 5 K lin d t-Jen sen 1 9 7 5 , p. 15;
16 D ubois 1 9 7 2 , p. 92. Sch iick 1932, p. 68.
17 R aim is 1 5 8 7 ; H otm ail 1583. 4 6 W o rm 1 6 4 3 , in trod u ction , p. 2.
18 Taillepied 1585. 4 7 See p. 63.
19 Gassendi 1641. 4 8 W orm 1643, p. 7.
2 0 Ibid. 49 B a c o n ,‘ |...| antiquities are history
21 Ibid., p. 2 3 5 . dctaced, or som e rem nants o f history
2 2 Levy 1964, p. 70. w h ich have casually escaped the ship
2 3 I\ ew \ iw G ift to K ing H enry VIII, w reck o f tim e’, Advancem ent o f Learning,
L on don , 1546. II, 2, section 1. Vossius, D e philologia liber,
2 4 Lon g 18 8 8 , pp. 1 9 8 -9 . ‘A ntiquities are the rem ains o f ancient
25 Ibid., pp. 1 1 7 -1 8 . times, similar to the debris o f a shipw reck’
2 6 See chapter one. (cited in M o m ig lian o 198 3 , p. 2 5 5 ).
2 7 G u m m el 1938, pp. 1 0 -1 1 ; 50 B aco n 1 840.
Stem m erm an n 1 9 3 4 , pp. 1 8 -2 2 . 51 Pom ian 1 9 8 7 , p. 48.
2 8 G u m m el 19 3 8 , p. 11. 5 2 See Taylor 194 8 , p. 126 and Schlosser
2 9 Ibid. 1 9 0 8 , p. 79.
3 0 Ibid. 5 3 Bacon 1627.
1 77
0 qui me-geLidis iiwa.Llll>H»mi A t^ metiis Onutetf fy kexorabil* TVhun.
S'l&ftbif uttfeiiiL tatttortun jprotetfafc utnkra.! i n.b;ectt pe4iba^ ,itretuf-u.»n<? Arjjeroufis
Tcelix <jui pot ait Re runt agtwfoere cau/as • 3 avarl .Yirs
C H A P T E R
F R O M
A N T I Q U A R Y TO
A R C H A E O L O G I S T
Tu ris de leur rodomontade (You laugh at their swaggering;

Ce sont Habicot, leurs escrits, They are outlandish, their writings,
Car tu leur rends telle dentade For you give them such a savaging
Q u’ils s’en vont sans ris avec cris [...] That they make off not laughing
Or il faut que tu t’assures but shrieking [...]
Que ceux qui ont mords sont remords Now you must make sure
D ’une si profonde morsure
That the biters are bitten
Que s’ils sont plus mords ils sont morts.
With such deep remorse
N IC OLAS HABICOT, A X 'I'IG IG A X TO LO G IE O l '
C O M R E D IS C O U R S D E LA G FL4X D ECR DCS <,! IV,'-;,

That were they bitten deeper
I'ARIS, 1618. they’d be dead.)
I,
. n the middle o f the seventeenth
century a new figure appeared in the world o f European scholarship:
T h e D ruids as portrayed
in a drawing by W illiam
Stukeley, 1 7 2 3 . Stukeley
the antiquary. Whilst the Renaissance — especially in Italy — had pro epitom ised the
am bivalence o f
duced scholars such as Pirro Ligorio and Bartolom eo Marliano who
th e eig h te en th -ce n tu ry
had dedicated their lives to the study o f antiquity, these did not repre antiquary: doctor,
sent a particular class o f scholarship. The Renaissance savant had too A nglican vicar,
illustrator, fieldw orker.
many strings to his bow to allow himself to be restricted to one branch H is brilliant
o f knowledge — his thirst for learning was too great. In this sense im agination revealed
to h im the m agic w orld
Nicolas Fabri de Peiresc and Ole W orm were still Renaissance men. o f th e D ruids, builders
Even if antiquity was their preferred domain, they were motivated by o f m egaliths. H ow ever,
his passion for
an equal enthusiasm for medicine, astronomy and geography. By con discovery also
trast, during the second half o f the seventeenth century these were m ade h im o ne o f the
best con tem porary
men who set out explicitly to construct a science o f antiquities as a
observers o f landscape
discipline in itself. After the age o f the explorers came the age o f the and the soil.
119
builders: where the men o f the sixteenth century

had tried to construct a historical m ethod , 1
scholars throughout Europe now set out to
establish a theory governing antiquities. It was no
longer a case o f simply describing the monu
ments, but o f explaining their use and function.
The pioneering O le W orm had already written
that one had only to examine the earth and to
excavate in order to bring back to life those peo
ples who had no written history.2 Reviving the
past called for a willingness to learn which, for a
northern European, meant liberating oneself
from the bonds o f classical history, and from the
fascination for G raeco-Rom an antiquity. To con
struct a history o f the Danes, we have seen how
W orm had to interpret the landscape and exam
ine the earth in order to discover a past that had
Frontisp iece o f been lost to human memory. Beyond the cities o f the ancient world,
N icolas Bergier's
no historian had gathered together the annals o f the past. W ithout
H istoire des grands
chemius de I'Empire writing there was no memory, other than that embodied in buried
rem ain, 1622.
remains — the language o f another kind o f history, intelligible to those
who were aware o f this material evidence o f the past. I f everything
contained within the soil formed part o f human history, then it was
the task o f the antiquary to classify and interpret this vast body o f
potential evidence, generis infmita.3 Nicolas Bergier, in his Histoirc dcs
grands chemins de I’Em pire romain, which appeared in Paris in 1622,
explained even better than W orm the need for a descriptive typology
o f roads:
It is thus of material and formal matters that we must speak f . . . j and show
that there were no works in the world in which so many materials were used,
and so much patience, vigour and industry applied to their setting out. It is all
the more difficult to deal with this subject because it is little clarified by history:
there are fe w authors who have described precisely and clearly the diversity o f
the materials of which these roads were made.4
The history o f roads was first o f all a history o f techniques, then a
complementary social history o f lines o f communication. Bergier and
W orm , working in very different ways, both attempted to explain,
interpret and order their material. This raises a fundamental question:
what was the nature o f the learning o f the antiquaries? And further,
how much value can be ascribed to the documents they produced?
no
3 - FROM ANTIQUARY TO ARCHAEOLOGIST
The progress made in historical research had led the Humanists to

question the methods applied, and to reflect upon the notion o f histor
ical proof. Somewhat later the antiquaries asked themselves the same
questions, but their response was different. The interpretation o f a text
does not obey the same rules as the evaluation o f a monument. An
archaeological ‘autopsy’ relies more upon the senses (sight, touch) than
a philological analysis. The antiquaries themselves propounded to the
Pyrrhonists5 the integrity o f object over text:
There is no greater security for us than that to be found in coins or ancient
marbles. Certainly neither theory nor fact can contradict this. W hereas our
remaining sources have the dubious reliability of texts which are continually
retranscribed, only these [the coins and marbles] have the initial authority o f the
original versions,6
For Ezechiel Spanheim, a brilliant diplomat and excellent numisma
tist, objects prevailed over texts because their evidence was more reli
able and better established (this did not apply to all objects, but to
those whose authenticity was beyond question). What could be more
trustworthy than an inscription, compared to tradition? Coins and
inscriptions were to the classical world what runes were to the Scandi
navian: a new source o f historical knowledge, more immediate than
tradition. Moreover, they revealed to the antiquaries landscapes hith
erto concealed. Certainly, one could collect coins for one’s cabinet by
using a reliable network o f informers and dealers, but inscriptions were
more demanding. To find them it was necessary to travel, to search the
soil and to examine the monuments. In this way archaeology won its
independence - by delivering a text o f another nature than that o f the
literary tradition. To summarise, the men o f the seventeenth century
(like some o f our contemporaries) were able to reveal the historical
meaning o f objects only by treating them as texts, by deciphering
them. Behind the meticulous work o f the antiquaries one can clearly
discern the philological metaphor which tends to frame material
object systems as language systems.
181
T H E E A R T H IS A H I S T O R Y B O O K
A R R A N G I N G O B J E C T S AS T E X T ,
MAKING HISTORY READABLE
S p o n , S p a n h e i m a n d t h e i n v e n t i o n o f n u m i s m a t ic s
B i a n c h i n i a n d c o m p a r a t i v e ic o n o g r a p h y
ejrwe-AAMj- bioE-xpnc9 du. f-uivxTA-«rnCA>«‘i./XHiOr?w*^?t

N obody has expressed better than Jaco b Spon
VSHVUK’MIMVtVK
■em w cw <avo toccxfx*
^CHMTNJC'IMIA)«mUM the idea that the study o f antiquities is a textual
M JfT ilA W T V * .
matter:
B ut without imitating the passion o f those who mis
trust any other science than that o f their hooks, let us
be content to have dem onstrated our subject, and to
show that there are w onderful things to learn fro m
inscriptions as well as fro m books. O r i f they must
have books, let us say that our antiques are nothing i f
not books, w hose pages o f stone and marble were writ
ten with iron and chisel.7
Spon shares with Spanheim the same curiosity
and interest in a living antiquity, complete in itself
and unobscured by any intermediary, revealed
through coinage and especially through inscrip
tions. But for Spanheim, coinage alone reaches us
/•J-tA PftX & *A W O lA OSJA C.VM L A P lD l r X B C V t l f CVMOVl
*4VMtSMATJy S T BHACH1AU J&KSAS A StH A OBRVTA TN lO A H H if with an integrity which lifts its importance above
AMAMUCT PRXCJCO RVM E X E R C J T W M C tN E tT O R I S JB O T W P "
O W CEA JU V E T t J U T OO HVSTSKGEilAVtW XVM tO K fT ^ r V JU tt <»*SW£
1ULI. PA1WTVS IHY1CO T X X T fO M A R .1 0 A rW O A M O T H f JU SM IA W O '
MQtOHOC © R j CO D C X II R iP E K T A JV N T ■"*
any other material trace o f the past:
O ther works, gloriously carved or constructed fo r
Plate from the catalogue o f antiquities by Paul their glory, even those which are fam ou s, were com
Petau, 1 6 1 2 .T h e o b jects show n here co m e from
pletely obliterated in a short period , either f o r their
tw o G a llo -R o m a n tom bs fou n d during w o rk on
the old H otel d'A njou. Clearly, all these rem ains are materials or through the ravages o f time. T here are out
n o t contem porary, bu t they attest to the desire to
standing references in which Cicero states that m onu
present excavated finds in situ.
ments were erected to citizens w ho died f o r the good o f
Frontisp iece o f A ntiqu ariae supellectilis portiuncula, the R epu blic: ‘T herefore a great m ausoleum will be
co llectio n o f Paul Petau, 1 6 1 2 . T h is album o f laboriously and magnificently constructed, its inscribed
plates was the first illustrated catalogue o f
antiquities to be published in France. H ere, as the letters a perm an ent testimony to your sacred virtue,
bo rd er o f the frontispiece, Petau drew an Egyptian that in exchange f o r your m ortal state you attained
sarcophagus seen back and front. B e lo w appears
the fo o t o f a bron ze cist (w rongly identified as ‘Isis
im m ortality’ (Phil., I, X IV ). Yet has not this too been
aerea’ or ‘B ro n ze Isis’ . Above, in a m edallion dem olished, consigned to oblivion, has not posterity
b etw een tw o E rotes, Petau in scrib ed the follow ing
L atin squib, playing o n his ow n nam e: ‘I want
slighted it or erased it? Temples, theatres, arches, tro
(peto) n oth in g w h ich is n o t antique.’ p h ies (I sh all sum up this principle p oin t in a fe w
182
b B a g rem w .3 0 M i.cA . w kta^
i83
R e p r e s e n ta tio n o f th e
re m a in s o f th e
a m p h ith e a tre at L yons,
fro m Rechcirhc dcs
(Wtiquitcs et curiosites de
la I’illc de L yo n , w r itt e n
b y J a c q u e s S p o n in
1673. J a c q u e s S p o n
c a p tio n e d his d ra w in g :
‘.4 is th e circle of th e
th e a tre w h e re p e o p le
w e re a c c o m m o d a te d .
B N ic h e s w h e re o n e
c o u ld s ta n d o r sit, o r
th e en d s o f g alleries o r
staircases. C O n e o f
th e v au lts [...] u s e d as
a ca g e fo r th e beasts
th a t w e re m a d e to
fig h t. D T h e o rc h e s tra ,
w h e r e th e n e x t in lin e
w a ite d . E T l i c arena
[...], o n c e a flat area
b u t n o w o n ly a
h illsid e v in e y ard .'
survive today? Those monuments which were built not for the current time,
but, like the theatre of Scaurus, which Pliny describes, were built for posterity,
have fared as badly; they have achieved their hope o f eternity, these whose
ruins or remains have remained just visible for m any centuries. The terrible
fate o f ancient texts subject to so much damage, and their destruction, so
often bewailed and yet which cannot be mourned enough, which man, even
though illiterate, docs not know of this and groan?*
All hum an works are doom ed to disappear in one way or another,
and every object carries within itself the seeds o f its own destruc
tion, but coins are in fact more solid, indestructible, thanks to the nature o f
their substance and the immediacy of their art; and they prevail through the
multitude of places in which they are found, and moreover, in their number
and variety.1’
T he quality of coins as evidence does not depend entirely upon
their physical and artistic properties, but is also linked to the condi
tions o f preservation and discovery. A serious archaeological analysis
enables them to be identified and dated. This kind o f observation
indicates exactly how far the antiquaries had progressed. T h e philo
logical model led the new antiquaries to construct a critical m ethod
just as precise and meticulous as that employed by the Humanists in
184
3 - PROM ANTIQUARY TO ARCHAEOLOGIST
their work on manuscripts. T h e authenticity o f a document depends

on evidence, and that evidence, according to Spon, is easier to estab
lish for inscriptions than for manuscripts and books. T h e latter may
always be falsified:
M oreover it is less easy to counterfeit an antique inscription than to falsify
a book or to attribute it to an author other than the true one: one needs a
greatly refined wit to recognise that a piece is not by a certain author. B ut to
pronounce an inscription to be not ancient I think is not so difficult, provided
that one has studied the subject a little. T he stone chosen by the Ancients, its
given shape, and the exact fo rm of the letters, together with their depth, are
not things easily im itated by ignorant w orkm en.
Finally, the style, the orthography, and even the full
stops if you will, which are usually triangular rather
than round, can uncover the deceits possible in this
medium, more easily than in an ancient b o o k .10
Spanheim and Spon were the inventors o f
numismatics and epigraphy as positive sciences,
because they were not content ju st to collect
their source materials and present them to
enthusiasts, but thought o f a way o f turning
them into the instruments o f analysis.
A generation later Francesco Bianchini was
to attempt the same thing with images. Let us
admit, he says, that profane history (being a
good Vatican official he was careful with regard
to divine history) is knowledge — it depends
upon sources accessible to human reason, and which proceed from Portrait o f Charles
Patin engraved for
purely natural causes. In this way the historian turns to tradition, to
the frontispiece o f his
w ritten sources. But these are not enough, because alongside oral Thesaurus
and literary tradition, antiquity has given us images, and the analysis Xuiuisiiuitum, 1672.
C harles Patin, a
o f images does not depend on the same methods as the analysis o f Parisian jurist and
discourse: d octor, epitom ised
the seventeenth-
T he addition of the figures and sym bols pertaining to each p art is not a cen tury antiquary.
frivolous ornam ent to my w ork; rather, it was my resolve and intention by Seated before his
m edal cabinet, he
m eans of these to m a ke the collection o f histories p resen ted here more holds a coin . O n the
im m ediate for the m ind and more easy for the memory. T h e force o f an m edal cab inet are
placed shells and a
idea conies from the robust im age with which in its conception it was, so to
R o m a n bust. Two
speak, stam ped on the mind. A n d the impression is usually strengthened engravings o f Louis
X IV and the em peror
by that robustness as the body is by the im agination, and intellect is by
Leopold 1 are hung on
evidence. B ut the figures, which aid the senses, do not always add strongly the wall.
185
to intelligence. T h ey must bring som e evidence o f truth with them , i f they

are to press hom e their m eaning [ ...] . I can avail m y self o f a pain tin g by
R a p h a el or T itian as an aid to the im agination in representing the tri
um ph o f Titus. B u t w hen I see the relief on the A rch o f that sam e Titus,
w hich show s him in his chariot, i f I read the inscription ad d ed by the
Senate, i f I g a z e at ancient coins where he is show n in a victor’s robes,
these images m a ke a much more profou n d impression on the m ind; they do
not serve sim ply to attract the eyes with w ell-ex e
cuted yet vague designs, but they are able to touch
our minds w ith those ancient symbols, w hich serve
as true w itnesses to that which is represented . 11
W ith this project Bianchini opened up a new
and original route into the past — that o f com
parative iconography. Archaeology during the
Renaissance, and sometimes afterwards, paid
scant attention to the status o f the images used
to give substance to history. In the manuals o f
antiquities equal place was given to illustrations
o f ancient works and to purely imaginary crea
tions. Bianchini, who was not only president o f
the Vatican’s antiquities commission but also the
Pope’s astronomer, tried to put order into the
com plex world o f images, and pleaded for the
use o f original works w hich should be treated
with the same care as other types o f documents,
coins, inscriptions and monuments:
Frontisp iece o f S o I, keepin g careful sight o f these principles, whilst trying to m ake the
B ia n ch in i’s bo ok ,
idea o f history vibrant and strong, have elected to express that idea with
show ing different
periods in th e history fig u res; but figu res ivhich support the p oin t being m ade, rather than being
o f religions, 1 6 97.
vague in that which they represent. T his can be achieved by recovering
S ee caption opposite
fo r a full description. images o f the works o f the ancient R om an s [ ...] . T his we hope to have
achieved by limiting the images to certain classes, and by assigning one o f
them, according to its own character, to each p a r t . 12
, B ianchini’s m ethod was emblematic as well as iconographic. Every
historical period since the Flood could be illustrated by a monument
or com bination o f monuments to signify the ‘age o f silver’ or the
‘age o f copper’, to use certain o f his traditional divisions. Bianchini
was the first to anticipate the important role played by the illustra
tion o f the monuments in the knowledge o f antiquity, but his con
clusions and his rigid way o f looking at the problems o f historical
186
3 - FROM ANTIQUARY TO ARCHAE OLOGIST
A bove: th e F lood. Plate taken from L a istoria universale provota con

monumenti, e figurata con sim boli, by Fran cesco B ia n ch in i, 1 6 9 7 .
Francesco B ian ch in i here shows us the co n ten ts o f a vase w h ich had been discovered in the
R o m a n countryside. T h is arch aeological discovery apparently attested to the an cien t cu lt o f
D eu calio n , worshipped after the F lood: ‘I f w e consid er the co m p lex in its general m eaning, it
seem s that it could n o t co n ce rn anything o th e r th an a superstitious representation o f th e F lood,
as celebrated in G reek tradition, w ith the fam ous sacrifice in ten d ed bo th fo r the dead w h o were
lost in this exterm in atio n o f m ankind and to safeguard those w h o w ere destined to repopulate
the earth.’ (B ian ch in i, 1 6 9 7 , p. 181.)
D escrip tio n o f frontispiece opposite: at the fo o t o f an Egyptian obelisk St Jo h n holds a pen and a
parchm ent on w h ich are seen an alpha and an om ega. At his feet an eagle, from w hose beak flows
the fou n tain o f life. T h e synagogue (symbolised by the veiled w om an), crow ned w ith th e ch i-rh o
syhibol by R o m e , baptises fou r co n tin en ts: th e Indian, identifiable by his feathers: the B la ck ; the
Asian; and th e Eu ropean, w ho offers th e Pan th eon und er w h ich is seen the terrestrial globe, a
C h ristian crow n and a rayed crow n. R o m e wears the arm o u r o f an an cient soldier. Lean ing o n a
shield w ith the initials S P Q R (the senate and th e people o f R o m e ) she holds in h er left hand an
upturned to rch . H e r left fo o t rests o n a hieroglyphic co d ex, h er righ t fo o t against a w ick er basket
representing paganism, from w h ich spill A rtem is o f Ephesus, the snake o f Aesculapius, the
w h eatsh eaf o f D em e ter and various an cient coins. In the left backgroun d appears R o m a n
landscape, to th e rig h t the basilica o f S. G iovanni in Laterano.
187
THE DISCOVERY ( ) F THE PAST
V ig n ette from a
ch apter o f L a istoria
universale prevota con
monumenti, efignrata
con sintboli, by
Francesco B ian ch in i,
1 6 9 7 . B ian ch in i
captioned his drawing:
' 1 8c 2 b a s-relief taken
from Pietro Santi
B a rto li; 3 m edal o f
Philip; 4 m edal o f
Lucilla; 5 Ju p iter as
god o f rain, as on the
A n to n in e co lu m n ; 6 a
Japanese idol.’
knowledge led him to confuse image with symbol and symbol with
cause. In spite o f this his work remains seminal, demonstrating that
along with numismatics and epigraphy, iconography was a necessary
branch o f archaeological knowledge.
THE SU RV EY O R S OF THE PAST

J o h n A u b r e y a n d c o m p a r a tiv e a r c h a e o lo g y
T h o m a s B r o w n e a n d th e r esu rrec tio n o f h is to r y
T h e concerns o f the epigraphers, numismatists and iconographers

were very different from those o f scholar-travellers such as Camden
and W orm . Their business, unlike that o f the latter, was not the reve
lation o f a world previously untrodden — they had to justify them
selves in the face o f the scepticism o f the philologists and historians
who obliged them to accept literary rules: presentation o f the
sources, internal criticism o f the documents, delivery o f proof. For
the study o f antiquities to progress, it would be necessary to marry
strict philological m ethod to analysis o f landscape, travel to the
knowledge o f literary sources but also o f local traditions, toponymy
and regional linguistics to a mastery o f tradition. This synthesis was
188
3 - FROM A N T I Q U A R Y TO A R C H A E O LO G IST
Num ism atists at

w ork, plate from
L a Science dcs
medaillcs, by
Jo b e r t, 1 7 3 9 .T h e
spaciousness and
luxu ry o f this
cabinet attests to
the craze for
m edal collectin g.
189
to be achieved by an Englishman, who ushered the antiquaries into a

new world. Jo h n Aubrey was born in W iltshire in 1626 and died
towards the end o f the century, in 1697. H e lived the life o f an
impoverished gentleman, a wanderer in search o f a haven, but this
admirer o f Francis Bacon and Descartes was an active m em ber o f the
Royal Society o f London, a friend o f Thomas Hobbes and W illiam
Harvey (who discovered the circulation o f blood), the colleague o f
N ew ton and Locke —in short, a man at the centre o f British intellec
tual life. His interests were those o f a man o f the Renaissance; he was
a scholar-traveller, folklorist and antiquary, but also a physician and
naturalist, a man o f letters and an excellent draughtsman. A man o f
influence with an enquiring mind, his major antiquarian work, M on-
umenta Britannica, met a similar fate to Peiresc’s, not because it never
proceeded beyond rough draft, but because he never found a pub
lisher. However, the manuscript was circulated, read and admired as
one o f the most important archaeological works o f the seventeenth
century. In its most com plete version, which dates to the last years o f
Aubrey’s life, the book falls into three parts. T h e first is devoted to
‘the religion and customs o f the Druids’, the second to architecture,
and the third to what we would today call archaeological structures:
barrows, urn burials, tombs, earthworks, and so on. T h e w hole is
com pleted by the M iscellanea, a kind o f appendix necessary to the
understanding o f the book, which is divided into four chronological
typologies:
- chronologia architectonica (classification o f the orders o f architecture);
- chronologia graphica (classification o f writing systems);
- chronologia aspidoligica (classification o f shields depicted on
tombstones);
- chronologia vestiara (classification o f clothing),
M ore than any o f his predecessors, including W orm , Aubrey
sought to construct a system o f antiquities which relied as much on
descriptions as on a series o f clearly stated rules. His goal was mani
festly theoretical; this is attested by a quotation from Guez de Balzac’s
Conversation with the M arquise de Ram bouillet:
Even all that is written down is not certain to survive, and books perish,
ju st as tradition is forgotten. Tim e, which can conquer iron and marble, does
not lack strength against more frag ile things. T h e northern peoples, who seem
to have arrived to m ake time pass fa ster and to hasten the end o f the world,
declared war in particular on written matters. It is no thanks to them that
even the alphabet itself was not abolished ,13
190
3 - FROM A N T I Q U A R Y TO A R C H A E O LO G IST
The antiquary’s craft as perceived by Aubrey could answer ju st that

sort o f question. T h e im perfect chronicles had to be replaced by
careful observation o f the landscape, the earth and objects. As
M ichael Hunter emphasised, Aubrey’s originality stems from his sen
sitivity to the past. A man who had lived through the Civil War and
its trail o f devastation could hardly be less aware than W illiam
Camden had been o f the destruction o f all kinds
which was affecting the countryside: ‘M ors etiam
saxis, nom inibusque venit, death comes even to
ft*** V»v »N#4%>*-»*< «x» »
stones and names’.14 W hat attracts the antiquary
is not only the individual character o f an object,
but the qualities in a m onument which bring the
past into the present, as Aubrey quotes from ■j #***'«♦
* •' ■***-+
M eric Casaubon: £ * * * > ♦ /? * **}
r* *>•>* A**---
T hat A ntiquaries are so taken with the sight o f old ^^ (itft&-dt K* A*.
t f u **- f 'y*,
things, not as doting upon the bare fo r m e or matter «i- * 'V* y ‘" '
(though both oftentimes be very notable in old things)

but because these visible superviving evidences o f
A ntiquity represent unto their minds fo rm er times,
with as strong an impression, as i f they were actually
• -j
present, and in sight, as it were , 15 A «*.*tL ^
Never had an antiquary w ritten so emphati •* ■ .V ..
, * * . " ? ^ **-/♦,
cally that knowledge o f the past demanded that W« •*&/•■" •>
'„ 4H* ♦#« «V j
application o f observation and imagination
w hich alone led to archaeological reconstruc
tion. Aubrey did not neglect the power o f em o
tion, but pressed it into service as a means o f analysis, an instrument T h e typology o f
m edieval w indow s,
o f knowledge. Aubrey’s method consisted o f com bining the observa
drawing from
tion o f past and present, ethnology with w ritten tradition, analysis o f Monumenta Britannica
by Jo h n Aubrey,
the landscape and the anatomy o f monuments. H e differs from W orm
w ritten in 1 6 7 0 . T h e
in the wider range o f his interests and methods, but also in his disre classification o f the
orders o f architecture,
gard o f description for its own sake, and his wish to establish rules o f
developed by A ubrey
interpretation to govern observation: in his w o rk , is o n e o f
th e finest exam ples
T hese A ntiquities are so exceeding old, that no B ookes doe reach them: so
o f m edieval
that there is no way to retrive them but by comparative antiquitie, which I arch aeological
have writt upon the spottfrom the M onuments themselves .16 typology.
Comparative antiquity: this singular expression is flown like a

banner —Aubrey was acutely conscious o f his originality. H e was cer
tainly not the first to consider the comparison o f monuments with
each other as a means o f identifying them , but he did invent the
191
typological-chronological method which consisted o f systematically

classifying the archaeological categories, as witnessed by his Miscel-
lanca. Palaeographers had for a long time been working on the
chronological classification o f scripts, and Jean M abillon was at that
time working on the creation o f a theoretical and practical frame
work for the study o f official documents. Aubrey’s crucial contribu
tion was to suggest that architectural features, blazons and clothing
could be subjected to the same kind o f classification. Aubrey’s pro
posed method was to order objects and monuments chronologically,
to identify the variables which permitted that ordering, and to com
pare the types thus identified with each other — a method which had
all the appearance o f a new science. His ambition was not to enrich
an enthusiast’s collection, or to construct a microcosm o f the uni
verse after the fashion o f the M useum W ormianuni, but to restore
Classification o f antiquity in a palpable form by marrying the rigour o f the naturalist

weapons, drawing
with the passion o f the historian. Aubrey was certainly aware o f the
from M iscellanea
qitacihvn em ditae ‘paradigm e de Vindice', which allowed the antiquary to restore the
antiquitaris by R o b e rt
w'hole from the part:
Sibald, 1 7 0 7 .T h e
flints, lon g considered A s Pythagoras did guesse at the vastnesse of Hercules stature by the length
as “th un derbolts’ are
o f his jo o te [ ...] , so among these mines, are Rem aynes enough left f o r a man
co rrectly interpreted
here. W orked as to give a guesse what noble Buildings &c: were m ade by the piety, charity, &
arrow heads, they take magnanimity of our forefathers
th eir place alongside
o th er weapons. His ambitions were not limited to a palaeontological restoration o f
the past. He suggested to the antiquary that his ultimate goal was to
discover the way o f life, behaviour and even the psychology o f van
192
3 - FROM A N T I Q U A R Y TO A R C H A E O L O G I S T
ished populations. This he did with the humour o f a man who had
travelled the English countryside, who had noted his fellow country
m en’s estrangement from the past, and in some cases, their deleteri
ous enthusiasm, as Michael Hunter describes:
H e then compared the ruins with fragments of a shipwreck [an image
very close to Francis Bacon] ‘that after the revolution of so many yearcs
and goverments, have escaped the teeth of time, and (which is more danger
ous) the hands of mistaken Zeale. So, that the retriving o f these forgotten
things from O blivion in som e sort resembles the A rt of a Conjurer , who
m akes those w alke & appeare that have layen in their graves many hundreds
o f yeares: and to represent as it were to the eie the places, Cnstomes and
Fashions, that were o f old Time.’18
A rc 11 ac o 1ogi ca 1 m ap
o f W essex, drawing
from Xlonwncnta
Drihiiiniui by Jo h n
Aubrey, w ritten in
1 6 7 0 .T h is map is a
fine exam ple of
Aubrey's
archaeological
m ethod.
T h e antiquary was no sorcerer guided only by the force o f his

imagination; his task was to bring to light objects and monuments,
but also rules for their interpretation. ‘Comparative antiquity’ was a
speculative method which attempted to decipher the language o f
monuments. For someone with Aubrey’s mathematical skills, it was
tempting to draw an analogy from algebra:
In that deluge o f history, the account o f these British monuments utterly
perished: the discovery w hereof I do here endeavour (for want o f a written
record) to w ork-out and restore after a kind o f algebraical method, by compar
ing them ... to m ake the stones give evidence for themselves . 19
193
C h am bered tom b
k n ow n as Waylands
Sm ithy on the
Berkshire D ow ns,
drawing from
M o n u m enta Brit am i ica
by Jo h n Aubrey,
w ritten in 1670.
tl i ‘ /k*> ■
Frontispiece from the N ot content with establishing an exact typology o f monuments,

w ork by Jo ach im
Aubrey set out to support his reasoning by reference to a range o f
O udaans, published in
A m sterdam in 1 6 44. facts expressed algebraically. In other words, he invented what we
In this im age th e taste
would today call ‘theoretical archaeology’. In view o f these brilliant
fo r medals is
associated w ith the insights, it hardly matters that Aubrey, in his work, did not really
interest in excavation.
follow his own rigorous model. O ne could hardly expect him to date
To the left, in a palace,
co llecto rs exam in e the m egalithic structures correctly (even though his refutation o f the
survey o r restoration theory o f Inigo Jones, the famous architect who regarded Stone
o f a m on u m en t; to the
rig h t, beyond the henge as a R om an temple, is not without interest). He suggested a
terrace, m en dig up typology o f fortifications, contrasting the square R om an camps with
the earth.
circular ones, demonstrating once again his talent for observation.
Even though he hesitated to attribute the latter to the ancient
Britons or the Danes, he had laid the foundations o f a new way o f
thinking. T h e pioneers o f aerial photography were to follow the
same process. The misfortunes o f his private life, like the setbacks he
suffered in his attempts at publication, resulted in Aubrey’s being
deprived o f the place he deserved in the history o f archaeology;
recent work by British archaeologists, however, has allowed us to
rediscover a personality ju st as important and original as Peiresc.
Aubrey was certainly archaeology’s first true formalist. Even if his
message was scarcely heard, he helped to give archaeology in Britain,
in other respects so pragmatic, a theoretical dimension. Aubrey shared
with Spanheim and Spon a faith in the antiquarian method, in the
194
3 - FROM A N T I Q U A R Y TO AR C HAEOLO GIST
195
need to reach the most ancient history through original documents

which were very different from the manuscripts o f the Humanist tra
dition. T he difference lies in his realisation that he must take into
account humbler objects than coins, and that for the most ancient
history o f England, inscriptions would be o f no help to him. Unlike
Bure and W orm , he was not driven by the attraction o f deciphering
an unknown script, but rather by an enormous appetite for land
scapes and their monuments, as well as by his sense o f the fragility of
the testimony o f the earth. T he science o f his day was a more experi
mental matter than in the time o f his learned Scandinavian predeces
sors, and so he was less passionate than they about descriptions, and
more eager for explanations. We should not be surprised.
In Britain during the second half o f the seventeenth century the
discourse on antiquities formed a literary genre o f which the master
piece was penned by one o f the best prose writers o f the time,
Thomas Browne. A physician, he was born in London in 1605 and
died in 1682. Like W orm , he learned his m edicine in Padua and
M ontpellier; he settled in N orw ich in 1637. The discovery o f funer
ary urns in a field near N orfolk led him to publish, in 1658, a pam
phlet entitled H ydriotaphia, Urn Buriall, or, A Discourse o f the Sepulchrall
Urnes lately found in N orfolk. It was not his purpose to produce an
excavation report in the modern sense. It was more a philosophical
meditation upon the fragility o f human life, a widely discursive essay
on death. T he past which made such such a vivid impression on the
author’s imagination appeared to resemble no well-defined period,
even though he attributed burials to the R om an period which we
now know to be Saxon. W ith its varied and sometimes extravagant
style, and the subtle interplay between scholarship and em otion,
B row n e’s book demonstrates the archaeological sensitivity o f the
contemporaries o f Locke and Hobbes:
In a field o f old W alsingham not many m onths p ast were digged up
between forty and fifty urns, deposited in a dry and sandy soil, not a yard
deep, nor far from one another. N ot all strictly o f one figure, but most
answ ering these described: som e containing two pou n d s o f bone, distin
gu ishable iti skulls, ribs, faws, thigh-bones, and teeth, with fresh impressions
of their combustion. Besides the extraneous substances lik e pieces of sm all
boxes or combs handsom ely wrought, handles of sm all brass instruments,
brazen nippers, and in one som e kin d o f opal.
N ear the sam e plot o f ground for about six yards’ compass were digged
up coals and incinerated substances, which begat conjecture that this was the
196
ustrina or place of burning their bodies, or som e sac

rificing places unto the manes, which was properly
below the surface o f the ground as the arae and
altars unto the gods and heroes above it.
T h at these w ere the urns o f R om an s from the
common custom and place where they were found is
no obscure conjecture / . . . / . 2(1
Brow ne’s attitude to the discovery was that o f
the conscientious doctor, more interested in the
site and the nature o f funerary deposits than in
possible finds. His analytical method was, how
ever, that o f the antiquary. He went beyond
comparison o f the remains with others found in
the region, and fitted his description into a
topographical and chronological study o f finds
in that part o f England. Having defined the his
tory o f the place and its various phases o f occu
pation, he went on to deal with the funerary
customs, having evidently read Italian anti
quaries like Bosio as well as the Scandinavians (Worm). In fact his Funerary urns,
draw ing by T hom as
commentary is a general discourse on the techniques o f cremation,
B row n e from his
in which he invokes both classical tradition and the works o f past and H ydriotaphia,
published in 1 6 5 8 .
contemporary antiquaries. It is first and foremost a meditation upon
T h ese funerary urns,
funerary customs: n ow regarded as
H e that lay in a golden urn em inently above the earth was not like to S axon , had been
attributed by Thom as
fin d the quiet o f these bones. M any o f these jroyalj urns were broke by a B row n e to the
vulgar discoverer in hope o f enclosed treasure; the ashes o f M arcellus were R o m a n period .
lost above ground upon the lik e account. W here profit hath prom pted, no
age hath wanted such miners, fo r which the most barbarous expilators found
the most civil rhetoric: ‘G old once out o f the earth is no more due unto it,’
‘W hat was unreasonably com m itted to the ground is reasonably resumed
from it,’ ‘L et monuments and rich fabrics, not riches, adorn m en ’s ashes,’
‘T he commerce o f the living is not to be transferred unto the d ea d ,’ ‘It is no
injustice to take that which none com plains to lose,’ and, ‘N o man is
wronged where no man is possessor.’21
This extraordinary refutation o f R om an funerary laws, this apolo
gia for T h eo d oric’s edicts on the disinterment o f treasures,22 is also a
formidable defence o f the antiquaries’ right to dig up whatever they
pleased. Browtie the stoic made com m on cause with the antiquary to
ridicule human vanities and to deride the sumptuousness o f tombs.
19 7
T h e text is remarkable for its dual nature. O n the one hand, the
archaeological discovery is an occasion to reflect upon death and the
ephemeral nature o f the body; on the other, the act o f reflection is
based upon a minute description o f the urns and
TAB.XXXI11. All MO'. ABA
their position in the soil, and on the survey o f the

zones o f deposition. Protohistoric, R om an and
medieval cem eteries were a never-ending source
o f fascination to the men o f the Renaissance;
Thomas Brow ne’s work transformed that curiosity
into knowledge because it sought more to explain
than to describe.
T h e innovative work o f men such as Aubrey and
Browne illustrates the changes which characterise
the second half o f the seventeenth century. Strong
in the knowledge gathered by their predecessors,
the new antiquaries were encouraged to excavate,
to construct chronologies, and to attempt recon
structions based on the detailed observation o f the
earth and its monuments. M en such as R o b e rt
Plot and Edward Lhuyd are typical o f the new
generation, who regarded the study o f antiquities
as part o f natural history.
Plate from the N atural Plot was the first keeper o f O xford University’s Ashmolean
H istory o f S taffordshire
Museum, and Lhuyd was his immediate successor. Antiquities were
by R o b e r t P lot,
representing a variety included in his books the N atural H istory o f O x fo rd sh ire (1677) and
o f o b jects in clud ing a
the N atural History o f S taffordshire (1686), but as he explained him
flint, bron ze axes, a
statuette, an early self, these were not to be confused with ‘the pedigrees or descents
C h ristian cross and
either o f families or lands [...] nor o f the antiquities or foundations o f
an cien t stone
m on u m en ts. R eligious houses [ ...] ’.23 P lot’s aim was to study not traditions but
material remains: ‘ancient Mony, Ways, Barrows, Pavements, Urns,
ancient M onum ent o f stone, Fortifications, & c .’.24
THE A N A T O M IS T S OF THE LANDSCAPE

‘A n a t o m i c a l d i s s e c t i o n ’ a n d t h e d is c o v e r y o f
C h i l d e r i c ’s t r e a s u r e
Since the discoveries made by Camden and the first Scandinavian

antiquaries, archaeology had progressed as much in the methods o f
field survey as in the appraisal o f sources and the application o f
198
3 - PROM A N T I Q U A R Y TO AR C H AEO LO G IST
botanical and geological knowledge. But the principal progress came

from excavations, and in this area the Scandinavians were at the fore.
The most advanced were the Swedes, who were the first to establish
a national antiquities service. In 1662 the chancellor o f Sweden,
Magnus Gabriel de La Gardie, founded a Chair o f Archaeology in
Uppsala for the antiquary O lo f Verelius. In 1666, again in connec
tion w ith the University o f Uppsala, he established a C ollege o f
Antiquities. This organisation, under the guidance o f the secretary o f
the University o f Uppsala, Joseph Hadorph, had by 1675 an impres
sive list o f associates: a specialist in Icelandic sagas, two assistants, two
illustrators, an administrator, a secretary, a printer, two engravers, a
proof-reader, a messenger and a factotum — everything necessary to
collect, identify, w rite up and publish the results o f investigations
directly financed by the royal treasury. N ot content with being an
unrivalled organiser and scholar-traveller, Hadorph was quick to
undertake excavations and publish the results o f his findings at the
site o f Birka. At ju st about the same time Verelius presented the
description o f the excavations o f a tumulus near Broby:
T hat is why I am not really convinced that in B ru n aold ’s time all men
were crem ated as St O la f’s saga and Snorri have indicated. On the con
trary, the kings and heroes m ade use o f slaves w hom they intended to bury
as p art o f a funerary ritual. A n d I cannot refrain fro m adding to that the
funerary mounds raised after the prim ary cremation. It seem s likely that
they were built in B ru n a old ’s time, when all the bones and ashes gathered
together were covered with earth and stones so that they should not be
scattered, or suffer other harm . In order to test this hypothesis, I set out
last sum m er to open, by m eans o f the appropriate works, an enorm ous
tumulus near the Broby lands in the U llerakers territory. A s it w ould have
taken a very long time to dem olish the w hole m ound, an d furtherm ore
having no wish to disturb the shades o f the departed, I opened a way into
the m iddle o f the tumulus, extending it forw ard from the base o f one o f the
earthen sides. In the process I very soon fou n d ston e structures; they
stretched fro m north to south, and it seem s that oaken timbers had been
p laced above them, the cinders o f which had not all been consumed. A n d
there, am ongst the cinders, was the burnt body o f the deceased, turned I
believe towards the south. O nce the pyre and the body had been cremated
a tomb was built, protected by more stone placem ents and by soil, such
that none m ight harm them . To the north, I th in k at the h ead o f the
deceased, were placed som e very eroded urns of which only fragm en ts could
be recovered. Inside I foun d nothing but earth. T here were no more bones
199
or ashes, ju s t the rem ains o f funeral m eals and sacrifices to the gods and to
the dead, destined f o r the shades. In this tumulus I foun d fiv e structures
on top o f each other, and w hat I most w ondered at was that at the base,
top and middle, am ong the ashes and the bones burned together, I foun d
other bones and skulls in the sam e place which had been untouched by
any fire but which were, however, friable: certain
p r o o f that in the sam e otie fam ily som e individuals
were cremated and others buried. 25
This progress did not rely solely on recourse
to excavation to support reasoning, but was
linked to the attention given to detail, to the
composition o f layers, the analysis o f the con
text o f traces in the soil — in short the under
lying idea that the earth was com posed o f
remains o f different kinds which allowed the
reconstitution o f its history. W ithout realising
it Verelius employed, if one may say so, the idea
o f stratigraphy.
This was an idea embraced by the most
renowned and brilliant o f his Scandinavian
contempories, O lo f Rudbeck. M uch has been
w ritten about R u d b eck ’s work as historian,
comparativist and anthropologist, but his work
as an antiquary has been relatively neglected.
Stratigraphical section Born in 1630 at Vasteras in Sweden, R udbeck was elected Professor
o f a tumulus, from
at the University o f Uppsala in 1653. He soon left o ff his botanical
O lo f R u d b e c k s
Athmtica, 1 6 9 7 .T his and medical studies to launch into a visionary prehistory which
view of the tumulus
sought to establish the superiority o f Nordic man, embodied by an
is probably o ne o f
the first published original land o f Atlantis which coincided with Scandinavia. In his
stratigraphical
conception o f archaeological methods, Rudbeck was not different
sections.
from his predecessors Worm or Hadorph. Like them, he considered
travel to be the prim e discipline, that w hich unlocked an under
standing o f the landscape, and like them he associated toponymy
with the study o f sagas, medieval sources and the survey o f runic
inscriptions. But he was w ithout doubt one o f the first to regard
excavation as an act o f anatomical dissection, an operation which
consisted not just o f removing objects from the soil, but o f under
standing the relationships o f the remains to the layers which pre
served them. This conception o f fieldwork led him to make cuttings
into the Uppsala tumuli which he had undertaken to excavate.26 The
200
3 - f r o m a n t iq u a r y t o a r c h a e o l o g is t
funerary chamber was carefully drawn and the layers clearly distin
guished one from another. R u d beck regarded the landscape with an
anatom ist’s passion and com bined bird’s-eye views, classic since
W orm , with the production o f contoured plans w hich gave the
relief great precision o f detail, such as in the plan o f the old town o f
Uppsala .27 Observation o f the soil even led him
to propose the establishment o f an absolute
stratigraphy calculated by the thickness o f the
layers.28 B eing a good Lutheran he began his
chronology with the Flood; however, it cannot
be denied that w ithin the limited means at his
disposal, Rud beck laid the foundations o f strati-
graphic method. H e demonstrated an innovative
intuition in resorting to observations o f the
successions o f strata to establish an absolute
chronology.
However, the idea o f looking at the soil first
as the container o f objects from the past, but also
and above all as a succession o f fossilised
deposits, was not entirely invented by the Scandinavian antiquaries. Stratigraphical
analysis, from O lo t
Men as different as the R om an antiquary Flaminio Vacca at the end
R u d b eck 's A tlan fiu i,
o f the sixteenth century, or Nicolas Bergier at the start o f the seven 1697.
teenth, had already expressed almost comparable views. Flaminio

Vacca confidently ascribed the Tiber deposits to the Flood:
I recall that in the foundations of St Peter's in the Vatican, towards St
M a ry ’s church, in the chalk layer were fou n d som e pieces o f w ood fo u r
hands long and one wide, which had been hum anly w orked using an axe or
another iron tool. A n d that must have been before the great ark, since the
layer o f chalk is the work of the great F lood, and the w ood was covered by
the latter w ithout any trace of digging; these pieces o f w ood were like stone:
heavy, black and hard, and I have heard that they were p laced in the P o p e’s
wardrobe.29
Vacca’s outlook, however, was that o f an interested onlooker observ
ing an uncommon natural phenomenon. He was a long way from the
vision o f a man such as Rudbeck; it is perhaps possible to detect the
germ o f his theory in a man like the astute Bergier, who brought an
engineer’s precision to the study o f the remains o f the past:
Yet again I reach f o r Pliny and Vitruvius and again refresh my mem ory
o f the different m aterials used by the architccts, paying attention to the
ordering of their layers, each nam ed by historical sequence [ ...] . T hat done,
201
THE D I SC O V ER Y OF T H E PAST
202
3 - FROM A N T I Q U A R Y TO A R C HAEOLO GIST
I was resolved to have the great routes dug in my presence [ . . . / to see how Study of the principle
o f sed im entation, from
f a r they resembled domestic paving, in the diversity o f m aterials and the
O lo f R u d b e ck s
way in w hich they were laid. In this my time was not w asted, because A tlantica, 1697.
R u d b e c k here
having had the ground dug to bedrock and turned over from top to bottom,
attem pts a
I fo u n d distinct m aterials clearly separated and layered. T h e first o f these ch ron ological
m easurem ent o f the
three routes had the sam e num ber o f layers, organised in sequence just as
sedim entary deposits.
that fa m ilia r to us. In the second I jo u n d a slight change in ordering, and in
the third, the num ber o f layers was m ultiplied. B u t really there are so many
sim ilarities between the paving of the old houses and the m aterials used in
our great routes, that the order o f those of the houses can fill the gaps in our
know ledge and can re-establish the proper names for
each o f the layers o f which I was previously ignorant. c5 o r da..
I wait for the happy chance that I might fin d books
to give me a more exact and specific directi on .30
Nicolas B ergier brought to the soil the same
careful attention as R u d beck , but from a differ
ent perspective. For him exploration o f the
landscape was ju st a means o f filling out the
w ritten sources, and his trial diggings allowed
him to establish parallels with the vocabulary o f
house and road-building. Excavation helped to
com plete and sometimes to verify information
derived from w ritten sources; its principal mis
sion was not to discover objects or monuments.
It consisted o f considering the different layers
w hich make up the earth as an ensemble, the
com ponents o f w hich m erited analysis and
comparison w ithout ever constituting a whole.
To work in this direction the antiquaries had to
employ the tradition and methods o f Scandinavian archaeology, or to T h e m etam orphosis
o f the bee in to the
set about the study o f remains with the practical curiosity o f a man
fleu r-d e-lis, draw ing
such as Bergier. At the time this was not, o f course, the prevailing from A nastasis
Childcrici by Jc a n -
model. To see this clearly one has only to refer to the most famous
Ja c o b C h ifflet, 1 6 5 5 .
archaeological discovery o f the time, the treasure o f Childeric. T h e golden bees
discovered in
O n 27 May 1653 a tomb was discovered at Tournai full o f mag
C h ild e ric’s to m b are
nificent objects: gold coins, golden bees, a sword w ith enamelled represented h ere as
the originals o f the
goldwork, a ring w ith an inscription w hich revealed its ow ner’s
fleu r-d e-lis m otif.
name, C hildirici Regis. This discovery aroused enormous interest in C h ifflet was happy
to retain an artistic
Europe because this C hilderic was none other than the son o f
approach to
Meroveus, the father o f Clovis who died at Tournai in 481. Jean - archaeological finds.
203
Jacob Chifflet, son o f the personal physician o f Archduke Leopold,

Governor o f Belgium , hastened to publish a study o f the finds in
1655 with the famous publishing house Plantin. It was a fine work
o f rhetoric devoted to the discovery o f treasures from the Bible up
to C hild eric’s tomb, but the description o f the tomb was poor.
Among the very fine plates illustrating the major pieces there was no
plan, no view specifying the archaeological context o f the discovery.
W ithout unduly castigating the learned D r Chifflet, one sees clearly
that he lacked his Scandinavian contem poraries’ taste for and curio
sity about landscape. In France and Italy (despite the pioneering
work o f A ntonio Bosio on the subterranean remains o f R o m e ),
archaeology was still prim arily a hunt for objects or monuments
rather than an attempt to uncover the history o f the earth.
204
3 - FROM ANTIQUARY TO A R C H A E O L O G I S T
THE ERA OF S Y S TE MATI C

DESCRIPTION
BRINGING H I S T O R Y TO LIFE
G e r m a n y in s e a r c h o f its o r ig in s
O nce again the northern antiquaries gave proof o f a greater atten

tion to antiquities than their French and Italian contemporaries. This
was, in the first place, for archaeological reasons. The lively interest in
protohistoric tombs shown by the antiquaries o f the Renaissance
continued through the seventeenth century and the beginning o f the
eighteenth. The cabinets o f antiquities o f princes and bourgeois alike
Frontisp iece o f
Scpiilchretum gentile by
J .H . N u n n in gh ,
published in 1714.
It dcpicts the m eetin g
of classical and local
history.
continued to be filled with protohistoric vessels — often the excuse

for extraordinary museological set-pieces, such as the illustrations o f
the cabinet o f Johann Christoph Olearius, or the ‘pyramid-museums’
o f Leonhard David Herm ann. Alongside these spectacular displays
m ounted by collectors o f curiosities, the fantastic illustrations o f
such men as Picardt, with their Brum m agem giants and Germani,
seem to belong to another epoch entirely.
The time o f systematic description had arrived, and a great cohort
o f German scholars took the initiative. T he works o f Johan Daniel
205
M ajor (Bevdlkertes Cim brien, 1692), and J.H . Niinningh (Sepulchretum

gentile, 1714) are sufficient to show that times had changed. O n the
flyleaf o f N iinningh’s book, the opulent figure o f History holds her
pen high, whilst Hermes turns the pages o f the book she is prepar
ing to fill under the scrutiny o fT im e, portrayed as an aged man with
wings, scythe in hand and hourglass at his feet. N ext to History a
Cupid perches on an open cabinet o f medals. This imagery in the
classical tradition contrasts with the figure o f another Cupid in the
foreground, under History’s throne: in his hands he holds an urn, and
on the ground are the instruments o f the new
history: bronze and stone axes, lamps, arrow
heads, pots, coins. The image explicitly suggests
that a new range o f antiquities will contribute
to the writing o f a history that owes nothing to
classical history. To emphasise the difference the
author includes engravings o f a series of
objects presented in typological order: vessels,
axes, coins, spearheads. W hat is more, one o f
the plates is devoted to excavation: in the fore
ground two men are extracting a vessel from a
tumulus; behind them is a cluster o f burial
mounds, and in the background, megalithic
structures.
It is not surprising that these profound
changes in the nature o f archaeology took
place in Germany, and especially in northern
Germany. From the Renaissance onwards every
A rchaeologists at scholar was aware that local history depended upon antiquities to fill
w ork, engraving from
the gaps in the classical texts. Thus the transition from the R en ais
Sepulchretum gentile
by J .H . N iinn in g h . sance to the Age o f Enlightenm ent in Germany (and in the rest o f
T h e archaeologists
central and northern Europe) corresponds with a displacement o f
appear rather as
treasure-scekers than historical interest from the universal to the local. Leibniz him self had
as excavators, but the
called upon his compatriots to use their observations o f the earth in
graves and m egalithic
alignm ents are very order to reconstruct the ancient history o f Germ ania .31 That pre
carefully represented.
scription was followed to the letter by his friend and disciple J.G .
Eccard, who wrote an essay entitled D e origine G erm anorum , pub
lished in Gottingen in 1750 by L.W. Scheidius.
In a Germany in quest o f its origins, it was the clergy who took
the leading role in writing a new history which paid equal attention
to both text and landscape. They took over from the Humanists, but
2 06
3 - FROM A N T IQ U A R Y TO AR C HAEOLO GIST
1. Frontisp iece of in M usco by Jo h a n n C h risto p h O learius, 1 7 0 1 .

H ere the classic im age o f die pyramid is linked to a n ew class o f antiquities, svm bolised
by the three piled urns and the sherds placed at the base o f the pyramid.
2. Leonhard D avid H erm an n , in his Ma<Iogniphia (B rieg , 1 7 1 1 ), was o n e o t the first to show
co n n ected finds: each o b je c t was associated to its co n tex t, depending on its state o f preservation
in the so il.T h is form ot illustration revealed an anatom ical interest in deposits.
3. Exploration o f tum uli, drawing from Bcvolhcrtcs Cinibricit bv Jo h a n D aniel M ajor, 1 692.
M ajo r w ondered about the best way to exp lore a tum ulus: (A) shows a transverse
section, and (B) a segm entary cut.
20 7
T HH D I S C O V E R Y OF T H E P A S T
Frontispiece of die with the avowed intention o f verifying the cogency o f their theories
Gottorfischc
through personal observation and experim ent. Christian Detlev
Kunstkiwiincr, 16(>6.
T h e eagle reveals a R hode and Andreas Albert R h od e exemplified this new generation
bu co lic landscape
o f antiquaries who were not afraid to dismount from their horses
inhabited bv figures in
typical costum e, a and excavate with their own hands. They were both Protestant min
kind of ethnographic
isters from the region o f Hamburg, father and son (C.D. R h od e,
in tro d u ction to the
co llectio n . 1653—1717; A.A. R h od e 1682—1 7 2 4 ).They combined a sound classi
cal education with a feeling for landscape w hich recalls the anti
quaries o f the B ritish tradition. But they oweci to German
scholarship a familiarity with excavation
hardly known elsewhere in Europe. In
1699 and 1700, Christian R h o d e had
already published a report on his explo
rations in N ouvelles litteraires de la mer
B altique, where he speculated on the
function o f weapons placed in tombs.
Andreas R h od e, who from 1717 contin
ued his father’s collecting and excava
tion activities, had a more ambitious
aim. He wished to bring about a sharing
M egalith , drawing by o f direct experience o f the past, and to use the results o f excavation
Andreas A lbert
as a means o f learning about local history. To this end he edited a
R h o d e , from his
Gitnhriscli-Holsteinisclie weekly magazine, C im bnsch-H olsteinische A utiquitateu Rcmarques, one
A ndqnitateii Reman]ties,
o f the most engaging publications in the history o f archaeology.
1720.
These were modest eight-page leaflets, each one carrying on the fly
leaf an illustration preceded by Latin verses and a free translation in
Germ an. Each o f the engravings represented a m onum ent or an
object found during excavation. The style is individualistic, mixing
humour with concise description and notes on methodology in a
Plate from the popular German, but also full o f French and Latin words. This was
Gottorfische
K unstkdm m er. In the scientific journalism o f an informed kind, which allowed the reader
ch o ice and to keep up with the discoveries o f an eighteenth-century archaeolo
presentation of
o b jects, the influen ce gist on a weekly basis. T he subject matter, as announced in the first
o f archaeological w eek’s title, was funerary archaeology:‘It is the law o f nature that all
discoveries in
G erm an y is as notable
the dead must be buried.’ R h o d e ’s view o f his discoveries contains
as the in fluen ce of all the freshness o f first wonder, plus the com bined naivety and
ethnography: (1)
R o m a n lachrym atory
acuity o f a true fieldworker. Excavation was no inferior manual task,
vase; (2) R o m an lamp; but a technique o f exploration which was subject to rules. Johan
(3) Lusatian urn; (4)
Indian m um m y; (5)
D aniel M ajor had already suggested various techniques for the
Egyptian mummy. exploration o f tumuli: excavation by trench or by segment, designed
208
THE DISCOVERY O Y THE PAST
Frontisp iece o f
the Historic! dc
A rianism o d im
Smiglan infcstante
by M . Adelta,
published in
1 7 4 1 .T h e vases
and w eapons in
the foreground
sym bolise the
m arkin g o f the
past o n the earth.
210
3 - FROM ANTIQUARY TO AR C H A E O LO G IST
to avoid the blind destruction o f funerary struc

tures. R h od e was equally assiduous in his read
ing o f the earth:
Finally, when we had dug down to a depth o f ANTIQUITM'EN-
eight/nine fee t, there appeared a green earth which
bM7 Mact. 1719.
seemed to suggest that something would quickly be
Stat vetus & multos inaedua fylva per
fou n d ; I therefore stopped the labourers and under annos,
took the rest o f the work m yself with the aid o f a Jib ile eft illiNUmen inefle lo c a i
OoUf
knife and a little trowel brought fo r that purpose.32 |tf/
Like R u d b e ck and M ajor, R h o d e was an
observer used to spending long hours in the
field, a man w ith an eye for detail, and his
m eticulous style renders him one o f the pio
neers o f excavation technique. His curiosity
was not lim ited to observation, but extended
to interpretation, to the extent where his inter
est in the uses o f flint in the daily lives o f the
ancient Germ ans led him to knap his own
artefacts in an effort to reconstruct ancient techniques .33 T h e Frontisp iece o f an
issue o f C im brisch-
apparently chaotic products o f the m inister’s pen progressively
H olsteim sche
resolved themselves into a treatise on the protohistoric burials o f Antiquit&ten Remarques,
by Andreas A lb ert
H olstein. All the im portant questions o f prehistoric archaeology
R h o d e , 1 7 2 0 . O n his
were deliberated intelligently, and often humorously — crem ation drawing o f the
tum ulus, R h o d e
and inhum ation rituals, the interpretation o f grave goods, the rela
inscribes a verse from
tionship o f these finds to their ancient makers. Adm ittedly his O v id ,‘It is an old
remarks are somewhat vague from a chronological point o f view, w ood, n o t frequented
fo r m any years; this
and though he allowed that the is th e sacred place o f
Cua.IV. SOwfltttkrtngrfnPliyfiqlfl.Malicafcyt. I
bronze objects were older than a cult.
those of iron, the decisive

stone—bronze—iron paradigm was
not fam iliar to him . R h o d e did
not possess Aubrey’s brilliant
insights into typology, and unlike
R u d b eck he paid no heed to the
Typology o f funerary
topographical recording of his urns, draw ing from
excavations, but with his multiple th e b o o k by
En gelhard G uhr,
interests he was m ore typical o f
the field archaeologist in the Age T h e typological
approach is obvious
o f E nlightenm ent than either o f
in th e ord erin g o f
*"■* these two. H e had thus fulfilled the vases.
211
THE DISCOVERY OF T H E PA S T
the programme set out for him by J.A . Fabricius, who wrote o f the
preface to his book:
F or som e time all kinds o f good patriots have had it in mind that the
deeds, tales, behaviour and customs o f our ancestors, the ancient Germans,
should not be suppressed or abandoned to negligence. O ne has only to think
o f all the trappings and customs which the A ncients o f G erm any devoted to
their dead and to their burials, and one is astounded by the pains taken by
those interested in observing them in as much detail as possible. H ow many
have taken it upon themselves to supplement the testimony o f the authors o f
the past, by their own labour and at their own expense to research the tombs
and to present the evidence down to the minutest detail .34
B oth patriotism and Pietism are present in this work —in the taste
for detail, the enthusiasm for reconstruction, and the will to present
facts which were as irrefutable as the accepted texts; for the men o f
the Enlightenm ent knowledge o f the past was indissociable from
their religious convictions. T he pastors o f northern Germany had a
thirst for knowledge which was inseparable from their application o f
reason to religion —in this they resembled their British counterparts,
who went in search o f the Druids in order to establish a new kind o f
Anglicanism.
T H E D R U I D S : AT T H E W E L L S P R I N G
OF H I S T O R Y
S t u k e l e y a n d t h e r o le o f th e C e lt s in th e o r ig in s o f E u r o p e
It all began in an atmosphere o f serene positivism. William Stukeley

was born in 1687 to a middle-class family in Lincolnshire, at the
tim e one o f the most isolated parts o f England (according to his
biographer, Stuart Piggott), and at a very young age began his medical
studies in Cam bridge. There, and later at St T hom as’s Hospital in
London, he mixed w ith the foremost English scholars o f his day:
Isaac N ew ton, the astronomer Edmund Hailey, and Richard Mead,
director o f the hospital and one o f the most brilliant physicians o f his
time. In this scientific milieu the taste for antiquities was allied with
enthusiasm for botany, astronomy and mathematics, and Stukeley, a
gifted draughstman, showed him self to be a peerless observer. In
1717 he set up as a doctor in Lincolnshire and undertook a series o f
archaeological expeditions w hich were to determ ine his scientific
career. In a series o f archaeological guides to Britain, Stukeley seized
212
3 - FROM ANTIQUARY TO A R C H A E O LO G IST
R e c o r d o f a m egalith,
drawing from an
unpublished
m anuscript by G eorge
O w e n , H istory o f
Pem brokeshire, 160 3 .
C o n tem p o ra ry w ith
the first records o f
m egaliths, this drawing
attests to an
anatom ical interest in
the study o f
m egalithic
architecture. O w e n
was n o t ju s t a scholar-
traveUer but also
anticipated geological
stratigraphy.
C am den’s torch, iter domesticum, iter curiosum, iter cimbricum. C o m

pared with the German excavators, British tradition was more than
ever a peripatetic one. Even though Stukeley was not the first to dis
cover Stonehenge, his description and survey drawings were seminal,
and his account o f the nearby prehistoric site o f Avebury was to
enter the annals o f British archaeology. Stukeley com bined a knowl
edge o f the landscape with acute observation: at Stonehenge he was
the first to discover ‘the Avenue’, which led to the R iver Avon; at
Avebury he produced the first com plete plan and accurate topo
graphical interpretation o f the site. To the description o f landscape
he added excavation skills, and his approach was that o f a modern
archaeologist who observes the stratigraphy in the soil. H ere is
what he wrote about the excavation o f a Bronze Age tumulus near
Stonehenge:
T h e manner o f composition o f the barrow was g ood earth, quite thro’,
except a coat o f chalk o f about two fo o t thickness, covering it quite over, under
the turf. H ence it appears, that the m ethod o f m aking these barrows was to
dig up the turf for a great space round, till the barrow was brought to its
intended bulk. Then with the chalk, dug out o f the environing ditch, they
pow der’d it all over.35
W hat characterised the new antiquarian spirit o f the late seven
teenth and early eighteenth centuries was an interest in the landscape,
and a vision o f the earth not just as a potential treasure-chest but as a
repository o f interpretable traces. Stukeley’s habit o f recording his
213
Landscape notes at
S to n eh en g e, drawn by
Stukeley on 7 August
1 7 2 3 . Stukeley was
above all a landscape
archaeologist. T h ro u g h
his drawings h e
em phasised that
survey was an
indispensible m eans
o f understanding the
past.
N o tes o n the lie o f the discoveries in detailed drawings set him well to the fore along the
land at Avebury, drawn
path that led to the foundation o f landscape archaeology. His contri
by Stukeley in M ay
1724. bution extended beyond the development o f topographical analysis,
or the addition o f excavation to the antiquary’s scientific resources: it
led to a chronological analysis o f the past which put paid to theories
that megalithic structures were R om an or Saxon, declaring them to
be C eltic m onuments. In the absence o f a long chronology that
could accom m odate the existence o f a ‘history before history’, all
British monuments before the R om an period were deemed to be
C eltic. T h e consequences for science would not have been so dra
matic had Stukeley not regarded the Druids (who were thought to
be Phoenician colonists) as the civilisers o f Britain — preliterate
Christians o f a sort who, well before the advent o f Christianity, had
tried to introduce the seeds o f civilisation to Europe. This was the
heart o f the matter. I f the Renaissance scholars had succeeded in
expunging the myth o f Trojan origins from the history o f Europe,
the theologians o f the seventeenth century had not freed themselves
from biblical chronology. As a result they were obliged to com bine
the beginning o f history in Europe with sacred history. Many schol
ars and theologians attempted this, for example Simon Bochart in his
G eographia Sacra (1646). In such a context one should not be sur
prised at Stukeley s vision o f the Druids. W hen in 1728 he took the
cloth as vicar o f All Saints, Stamford, he was not only solving a prob
lem o f domestic finance; he brought to the Church o f England a gift
which the Archbishop o f Canterbury, W illiam Wake, held to be o f the
214
3 from a n tiq u a r y t o a r c h a e o lo g is t
■w *“ “ 4: 19‘ C'to-- # *
/ ; .............y S,
7*7- •$&*/ff'Z .rf-: lit j ^pf- c/ jf * r*y ^ j^
>rv~i'uS«rJj U urztf-bj- &/- ^ U'j'r 4&#. Ut^ & .
^ AHsfr-f' HWA? hc^KS- îtty H^gy-tîA^ djj?.t4, . ^
iU > o ffo r * * * * ..
ir& h **.ov ^ rk^ - JZ x-eL p J ’t-fln iry. 4 £ ^ cJ~ b r /£& -{> w X ^ U Jv- C%&-£aM.bU
/tey&VtMP- itL & ^ cS - 4rtSw? -^ f& a ^ b U v - <x*r& ltuff~ it r HtycSuX^
' is S o w * jZrwp f ~A~trtAJ- J?{£&a.fy io
<r f - 4 { £ $ ■ ^ <rr
’Cr r '-< / £>taM K.- dJ"y^ytf^0>'t-a~ ^hP> ^ ' % f ' '--
^ ,■ ^
. n. ^ .-C - a. </
. . .u .v^ .. T. « ».i ■
tp tty, ' ,.■
, . -:/
„- r& ffrv- u1a -jwx*'
■ <n^--
•, -J~ jk- {y~-~y
■ urd.teh' A.i j£l<tf& , -*"T «faf <
, 'f£if)^ VT*'
-g£?-rtS' O-t) j/fit>y~a.<±<9-3
^-£&?-rtS'
^ ^ $ - £^rt*u) J*-u -‘&' ttyy a r v m w f cSi%
o&ik^.. i'£p~ yea$v u
M j^rt?'0.{fe <a^f
fa i^pf
***
Vfr- ' <*’ ]» *£ « - <f lU ifiy
/;
if- / ^ ; f~ N /S
- '/»
S a t . - c ^ ^ y h r t ,
, . „ a ‘j <(fu>- s^> e r fS s it ^ k * < « ^ -« ^ * r ^
„_ y r ^'6J^ 7 /°
XP^s ^ x / ., ^ TV
___UM^
^.........................
i4 iH4?l"""'^/$ ^
/^Cs'"'
^
<J4
00 ' ’^- ( I r w **L. a t^ c- £ *■ 'w r * > -/ f U
A w xty*
e* iw w -,/
^ .C & :c L M ' » *v C ^ c ^ jiy M o *W
I«o 1 ^ * f ie K ^f grffsS isQ - ,

*J 0 tX S th /'v -ai/ ijS i- pcrcrs> *£■', d jaA u h i
jy J z f /^W'
(fArOyAi&S ■ (tw f% riu& f . am ^ - ct-fu+u)&r
8.0&S T&£y n r K /^ S
’ i 1&4- ^ 4 - , ^ ^ ^ ^ .-M ^ ^ L erk o u ,
^ S4d$»W t U z'iv ld - ,& uM~ (A id ' ^ 2 i) t9r^-YiM2i)
V>:Mf £ U C ty ^ > 'P k *p $ - <4 8 -e L ifc y n ,l£ * .a S a A 'e n j-c ti
215
THE D IS C O V E R Y OF THE PA ST
3 - FROM ANTIQUARY TO A R C H A E O LO G IST
O v erh ead view o f Avebury, drawn by Stukeley in 1 7 2 3 . Stukeley

was to produce an overall plan o f Avebury, co m p lete w ith detailed
topograp hic survey. Stukeley s drawings com pel as m uch by their
precision as by th eir quality.
277
first im portance — the re-establishment o f the

ancient history o f the nation as part o f sacred
.pi**-*
Jx f
2U - history. R o g er Gale, Stukeley’s friend and com
. panion on his excursions, wrote to him:
Your reconciling Plato and Moses and the Druid
and Christian religion may gain you applause, and
2 ) ma-!>•<-&«-Kti-! ca/,e- ^4-tuS $6*<rfL>
Qfm-- perhaps a Patron, but it is good to be sure o f the latter
v/f^T5* /7^f"
jVvmefo
upon firm er motives than that scheme may inspire
(^Jr ytiaf;iv-nv. people with at present.36
His old friend’s scepticism concerning his
Q 0C*f *** 2,tU>ptT(>£l

chosen path is equalled only by the criticisms
CuliUiAUhrt»
voiced by others close to him o f the new and
ftfk ** m i.
$*&/**' (*taf*'<*****<J Ca*tb*.
startling enterprise undertaken by the self-styled
arch-Druid. From then on Stukeley’s imagination,
■i interest, knowledge and gift for draughtsmanship
were bent on reconstructing the imaginary
world o f the Druids which he had created. The
Stukeley s L iber works o f R u d beck and Stukeley are in fact extraordinarily similar in
am koru m . Stukeley
some ways. Two doctors, two critical minds, both fieldworkers used
b elon g ed to a circle
w h ich includ ed the to practical outdoor observation — and both their approaches under
leading spirits o f the
mined by a highly poetical, fantastical vision o f the past. In both cases
age. A m o n g the
signatures and (differences o f time and nationality apart) the reason is the same: in
dedications o f his their exploration o f the origins o f man, the scholars o f the Enlight
friends show n here
are those o f N ew to n enm ent were obliged to take account o f sacred history. This was their
and Hailey. downfall, for they were forced to weave into the complex fabric o f
their observations and theories a thread which had no other justifica
tion than scripture. A strange destiny indeed for these robust men,
who began their quest by digging the earth and ended by indulging
in the crazy dreams o f the kind gently satirised by W illiam Cowper:
N or those o flea rn ’d philologists, who chase
A panting syllable through time and space,
Start it at home, and hunt it in the dark,
To Gaul, to Greece, and into N o ah ’s A rk.37
218
3 - FROM A N T I Q U A R Y TO AR C H A E O LO G IST
1 See H u p p ert 1 9 7 3 , pp. 9 3 - 1 0 9 . 19 A ubrey 1 9 8 0 - 8 2 , p. 3 2 .

2 W o rm 1 6 4 3 , In trod u ctio n . 2 0 B ro w n e 1 6 5 8 , 1 9 6 6 edn, p. 10.
3 Ib id ., p. 2. 21 Ibid., p. 2 4 .
4 B e rg ie r 1 6 2 2 . 2 2 B ro w n e refers exp licitly to C assiodorus,
5 T h e Pyrrhonists — from th e nam e o f Variae I, 4 ; see p. 8 4 .
th e G reek ph ilosoph er Py rrh o - o b jected 2 3 P lo t 1 6 8 6 , p. 3 9 2 .
to any h istorical discourse, saying that 2 4 P lo t 1 6 7 7 , p. 3 1 5 ; see P ig g o tt 1 9 9 0 ,
history was unknow able because it pp. 9 0 - 9 3 .
depended upon a series o f falsehoods 2 5 Verelius 1 6 6 4 , pp. 8 1 —2.
and errors o f in terp retation. ' 2 6 R u d b e c k 1 9 3 7 , volu m e III, fig. 3.
6 Spanheim 1 6 6 4 , p. 4 4 . 2 7 Ibid., volu m e III, fig. 2 7 .
7 Spon 1 6 7 3 , In trod u ctio n . 2 8 Ib id ., v olu m e I, pp. 8 5 —91.
8 Span h eim 1 6 6 4 , p. 11. 2 9 Vacca 1 7 0 4 .
9 Ib id ., p. 14. 3 0 B e rg ie r 1 6 2 2 , pp. 1 4 1 - 2 .
10 Sp o n 1 6 7 3 , p. 7. 31 L etter from L eibn iz to G eo rg F ried rich
11 B ian ch in i 1 6 9 7 ; th e q u otatio n is taken M ith o f, 1 7 M ay 1 6 9 1 , cited in G u m m el
from th e 1 7 4 7 ed ition , pp. 2 0 - 2 1 . 1 9 3 8 , p. 1 0 1 ; L eibn iz 1 7 1 7 , p. 3 3 5 .
12 Ib id ., p. 2 1 . 3 2 R h o d e 1 7 1 9 , p. 40.
13 M onum enta Britannica, M S O xfo rd , 3 3 Ib id ., p. 3 2 0 .
B o d leian Library, M S . Top. G en . c 2 4 , 3 4 Ibid., preface, p. 2.
p. 4 3 . 3 5 P ig g ott 1 9 8 5 , p. 9 3 ; Stu k eley 1 7 4 0 , p. 4 4 .
14 H u n te r 1 9 7 5 , p. 166. 3 6 Piggot 1 9 8 5 , p. 9 8 , letter from G ale to
15 Ibid., p. 171. Stukeley, 1 4 Ju n e 1 7 2 9 .
16 Ib id ., p. 181. 3 7 C ow per, ‘R etirem en t’ 6 9 1 —4, from T h e
17 Ibid., p. 178. C om plete Poetical Works o f W illiam C ow per,
18 Ib id ., p. 179. ed. R o b e r t Southey, L o n d o n , 1 8 4 9 .
219
(sTT’&V* Isl. 'J\ VJ* tot' / / J l?/?//^.• (§* Jit- £cty/u S t
if c^l_ <5-c<. y 2 . AAJL»\_.<£)oj3~V^t-1- -^ £ c* ^ cLcl4 Q <-y tH-*- P C X t j J l 9 l3uZ&

^»«-«5Cjjecn'-y An /&
<rr^ % ^>
- m . ^
/ôooa^f
*i*'* /- ifrW
£iJ\k£+*/ntJ*A xl) tScJL$Ou.Atlxtht—Pt. &s^jA-itt &±-t$o U V (/ &
^ •t>yJUAW^y^«t/r--/i?tffrT ^ O..? f<rCO

CHAPTER
O N T H E
R E J E C T I O N OF
THE N A T U R A L
HI S T OR Y OF MAN
S o m e A n t i q u a r i a n s , g r a v e a n d l oy a l ,
I n c o r p o r a t e by c h a r t e r r o yal ,
L a s t wi n t e r , on a T h u r s d a y n i g h t , we r e
Studies o f m egaliths in
M e t in f u l l s e n a t e at t h e Mi t r e .
and near the village o f
T h e pr es id en t, li ke M r Mayor, A u rille (Poitou),
com piled by the
M a j e s t i c t o o k t h e e l b o w chai r,
C o m te de Caylus in
A n d g r a v e l y s a t in d u e d e c o r u m 1 7 6 2 . Caylus was the
m ost enthusiastic,
W it h a fin e g i l d e d mace before him.
system atic and w ell-
U p o n t h e t a b l e w e r e d i s p l a y ’d to -d o o f the
A B r i t i s h k n i f e w i t h o u t a bl ade, antiquaries since

Peiresc. H e was
A comb o f A n g l o - S a x o n steel, interested in ‘G allic
A p a t e n t w i t h K i n g A l f r e d ’s s e a l , antiquities’, and
co llecte d illustrations
T wo r u s t e d m u t i l a t e d p r o n g s , w h ich he
S u p p o s ’d to b e S t D u n s t a n ’s t ongs, com m issioned from
th e engineers
W i t h w h i c h he, as t h e s t o r y g o e s ,
em ployed on bridges
O n c e t o o k t h e d e v i l by t h e n o s e . and highways.
JAMES C A W TH O K N , 1 7 2 1 - 6 1 .
w did the men o f the classical

age find it so difficult to escape from biblical chronology, and why did
the weight o f Scripture continue to confine them to a short chronol
ogy — so short that they were forced into the most complicated con-
torsions in order to conceptualise the ancient history o f man, and
therefore the earth?
221
T HE A N T I Q U I T Y OF MAN AND
THE A N T I Q U I T Y OF THE EARTH
THE BIBLE Q U E S T IO N E D
Isa a c L a p e y r e r e an d J u d a h H a le v i
Part o f the answer to the above questions is exemplified in the life

and work o f a scholar who, i f not the most learned o f his generation,
was certainly the m ost obstinate o f the defenders o f the long
chronology, the ‘black abyss o f tim e’ to recall BufFon’s poetic defini
tion. In February 1656 a wanted man went into hiding in the noble
city o f Brussels, but he was quickly taken by a company o f thirty
m en who shut him in the tower ofTreurem berg at the request o f the
ecclesiastical authorities. T h e arrested man, Isaac Lapeyrere, was no
highwayman but the P rince o f C on d e’s doctor, a form er French
ambassadorial attache at the Danish court, the confidant o f Q ueen
Christina o f Sweden and author o f a book which was decried by the
Protestant and Catholic world alike, Preadamitae, sive exercitatio super
versibus duodecimo, decimotertio et decimoquarto, capitiis quinti epistolae
D. Pauli ad Romanos ( The Pre-Adamites, or an Essay on Verses Twelve,
Thirteen and Fourteen ... o f the Letters o f Paul to the Romans). To the
scholarly world this book was no surprise. Its author’s notoriety and
the inflammatory nature o f the subject had made it a much sought-
after and anticipated work, which was published in five simultaneous
editions, three o f them by Elzevier in Amsterdam. Lapeyrere was
born in Bordeaux in 1597:
The son o f a K in g’s councillor, triennial and provincial controller with spe
cial authority fo r the wars in Aquitaine, a Protestant from a respected fam ily;
such are the main features o f Isaac Lapeyrere ... a great reader and enthusi
ast fo r the unusual, inventor o f a phonetic system o f orthography, historian,
engineer, perceptive ethnographer, he brings to his research a zeal so ardent
and original that he seems only to be satisfied by paradox or heresy.1
This man, so vividly brought to life by the discerning pen o f R en e
Pintard, was no beginner in the field o f scholarship and criticism. In
1643 he had published a pamphlet, Du rappel des juifs, w hich called
for a convergence o f Judaism, Protestantism and Catholicism, and in
1647 he published in Paris a m inor masterpiece o f geographical and
ethnographical inform ation on Greenland, Relation du Groenland
(A n Account o f G reenland). From his position on the fringes o f
222
4 - ON THE R E JE C T IO N OF T H E N A T U R A L H I S T O R Y OF M A N
Protestantism and Catholicism (and even o f

Judaism, since some authors would like to see R E L A T IO N
him as a kind o f Marrano [Spanish or Portuguese
D V
Jew ]), Lapeyrere appeared to be literally obsessed
with the narrowness o f the historical and geo GROENLAND.
fttu r de I a
I*
graphical fro n tie rs im p o sed by th e Je w is h
S crip tu res. H e aimed to put into practice the
programme prescribed by B acon — to approach
matters o f intellectual and spiritual achievement
w ith the same drive as that w hich carried the
explorers and scientists to great discoveries. In all
his works, from Du rappel des juifs to Les
Preadamites (translated into English as Men before
A dam ) and including his R elation de Vlslande A PARIS,
(another ethnographical and geographical essay Chez A v g v s t i n C o v r b E j dans la
petite SaJledu Palais, a ia Paltnc.
published in 1663), a single thread links th eo
logical discourse, geographical exploration and
jji jjK j' jiucc Priuilege du Ray, *
critique o f sources. However, his critical efforts
collided with a text w hich no one in the seven
teenth century could investigate with impunity:
the Bible. Contrary to the accusations o f his
numerous —and fascinated — critics, Lapeyrere was not out to under T itle page o f Isaac
Lapeyrere s w ork,
m ine the foundations o f H oly Scripture. His more modest — but
R elation du Q roenland,
equally dangerous — aim was to distinguish in the biblical text 1 6 4 7 . T h is was a
considerable scholarly
between what was owed to things human, and what to things divine.
ach ievem en t in the
His reference to St Paul functioned as a kind o f guarantee o f the fields o f geography
and ethnography, and
Christian orthodoxy o f the project. In this he was continuing a much
a m ileston e in
earlier tradition, which allowed humanity a far longer history than L apeyrere’s career.
that authorised by the Bible:
It is a natural suspicion that the beginning o f the world is not to be
received according to that common beginning which is pitched in Adam,
inherent in all men, who have but an ordinary knowledge in things:for that
beginning seems enquirable, at a fa r greater distance, and from ages past very
long before; both by the most ancient accounts o f the Chaldeans, as also by
the most ancient records o f the Egyptians, Ethiopians and Scythians, and by
parts o f the fram e o f the world newly discovered, as also from those unknown
countries, to which the Hollanders have sailed o f late, the men o f which, as is
probable, did not descend from A dam .2
N othing too extraordinary in this, but the form is probably more
important than the content. W hile considerable intellects had for a
223
very long time been doubting the age o f the world allowed by
Scripture, none before Lapeyrere had devoted a systematic treatise to
this delicate subject.
T h e idea that the history o f mankind went back perhaps dozens o f
millennia was com m on to the Greeks, and before them to the Egyp
tians and to the Assyrians and Babylonians. B u t the Bible, from the
m om ent it became accessible to the Greeks and Rom ans through its
early translation know n as the Septuagint, offered a much shorter
chronology and an account o f the creation o f the world which was
to becom e a central tenet o f Christian orthodoxy. In the fifth cen
tury AD, St Augustine had definitively expelled from the Christian
West ‘the abominable lyings o f the Egyptians’, who claim for their
wisdom an age o f 10 0 ,0 0 0 years’ ,3 and dedicated another chapter o f
T he C ity o f G od to the demonstration ‘o f the falseness o f that history
that says the world has continued many thousand years’ .4 N otw ith
standing the good faith and the science o f pagan authors, i f they con
tradicted Scripture then they could not be telling the truth. The West
was to live for thirteen centuries beneath the magisterial interdict o f
the Bishop o f Hippo.
However, this historiographic dogma was subjected to criticism
wherever ecclesiastical or rabbinical backs were turned. Judah
Halevi’s extraordinary book, the K a za ri, was w ritten in Spain at the
beginning o f the twelfth century (the Kazars were rulers o f lands
bordering the Black Sea, who hesitated for a long time before decid
ing to which branch o f monotheism they would convert —Jewish,
Christian or Islamic). In it the king asks the rabbi, ‘Does it not
weaken thy b elief if thou are told that the Indians have antiquities
and buildings which they consider to be millions o f years old?’ The
rabbi replies proudly:
It would, indeed, w eaken my b elief had they a fix e d form o f religion, or a
book concerning which a multitude o f p eop le held the sam e opinion, and in
which no historical discrepancy could be fo u n d . Such a book, however, does
not exist. A part from this, they are a dissolute, unreliable people, and arouse
the indignation o f the follow ers o f religions through their talk, whilst they
anger them with their idols, talismans, and witchcraft.5
T h e rabbi’s reply is couched in exactly the same terms as the
Judaeo-Christian polem ic o f the Later Empire against pagans, but it
is careful to avoid the fundamental debate. T h e Indians are dismissed
by the same method as that used by St Augustine: because they do
not accept the message o f the Bible, their history has no reliable
224
4 - ON THE REJECTION OF T H E N A T U R A L HISTORY OF M AN
basis. T h e denial o f the long history o f man was thus at the heart o f
o f monotheistic doctrine; it was typical o f the sort o f question which
defined the classic debate between heathens and monotheists. And
despite the denials o f orthodox believers, o f whatever persuasion, the
question cropped up every time a small mixed group discussed the
comparative history o f the origins o f man. Halevi him self was more
prudent than the unknow n rabbi; he suggested that his readers, if
they were not com pletely convinced by the orthodox argument,
should allow that at least one world — ours, that o f Scripture — owes
its existence to a progenitor called Adam .6 In the Judaeo-Arab
world, which in the Middle Ages wras much more open to Assyro-
Babylonian, Egyptian and Indian influence, the apparent simplicity
o f the biblical chronology was less easy to defend than within C hris
tian culture. N abatean Agriculture, a curious docum ent w ritten in
Arabic at the beginning o f the tenth century, already attributed to
the Sabaeans (the inhabitants o f ancient Arabia) the b elief that the
history o f man went back several hundred thousand years, and some
cabbalists were quick to postulate the existence o f other worlds,
much more ancient than ours. In the twelfth century Maimonides
echoed these traditions:
T he Sabaeans allow ed the eternal nature of the world, because according to
them the sky was G od. T hey held that A dam was a person horn o f a man
and a w om an , like other human beings, but they glorified him saying that he
was a prophet and apostle o f the moon, that he encouraged the cult o f the
moon, and that he wrote books on agriculture.7
Dow n the centuries, despite the denials o f the rabbis and the
Church, the obscure tradition o f a much longer history than Genesis
permits was preserved, even though it may only be glimpsed through
the refutations o f the adherents o f orthodoxy. It seems to run parallel
to the theme o f the ‘three impostors’ (Moses, Jesus and Mahomet),
which feeds an entire body o f clandestine literature and ideas
denounced by the Church and the ruling authorities —a kind o f per
manent conspiracy against the religions based on holy writ. R ig h t
through the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries heresy trials bear wit
ness to the existence o f a critique o f Scripture, one o f the pivotal
themes o f which was the denial o f the Adamite origins o f humanity.
The discovery of America put this kind o f critique back on the
agenda in two ways. First because it posed questions about the origin
o f the American peoples, and second because there were many w it
nesses to the fact that these people used a much longer chronology
225
than the biblical one. Even if Christopher Columbus had never con
sidered that the Native Americans might be different from the Indi
ans normally encountered on the Asian route, his immediate
successors soon had to address the problem o f the ethnic and racial
character o f the indigenous peoples. It had probably already cost the
missionaries and conquistadores some effort to admit that these people
were indeed human, and therefore souls which must be conquered.
However, once the humanity o f the native peoples had been
accepted, there was immense speculation as to their origin: migra
tions o f the lost tribes o f Israel, Phoenicians, Arabs and even N orw e
gians were invoked in order to explain the first colonisation o f the
Portrait o f Paracelsus, Americas. O ne notable voice, however, was raised in defence o f the
by Q u en tin M etsys.
indigenous nature o f these peoples, that o f Theophrastus Bombastus
Theophrastus
Bom bastus von von Hohenheim , otherwise known as Paracelsus, founder o f chem i
H oh en h eim ,
cal medicine, and O le W orm ’s spiritual father:
otherw ise k now n as
Paracelsus T hus we are all descendants o f A d am . A n d I can scarcely hold back
(1 4 9 4 —1 5 4 1 ), was one fro m b rief m ention o f the men w ho have been discovered in hidden islands
o f the first to propose
the polygenesis o f the and w ho are still unknow n. It is not likely that w e must consider them as
hum an race, thus descendants o f A d a m ; w hat w ou ld any such be doing in the hidden
calling H oly Scripture
in to question. islands? It seem s to m e wiser to think o f these men as descended fro m
an other A d am , because it w ill be difficult to postu late that they are near to
us in fle s h and blood .8
This sort o f theory is not, as Popkin points out, pure and simple
confirm ation o f the polygenesis o f the human species, but it does
open the way — a way embraced by Giordano Bruno, and one which
led him to the stake. In his Spaccio della bestia trionfante (1584), he
treated the question o f chronology as an element o f biblical criti
cism. I f the Americans were accepted as men, then one must also
accept their chronology, in particular their suggestion that the world
was more than 2 0 ,0 0 0 years old. It is quite likely that this allusion o f
B ru n o ’s refers to the discovery in 1551 o f the Aztec stone calendar
w hich was buried seven years later by the Spanish ecclesiastical
authorities in case o f scandal.9 B ru n o’s critique came very close to
m eeting the views o f Paracelsus:
Because men are o f many colours — the black p eop le o f E thiopia, the red
tribe that is native to Am erica, the water-based p eop le o f N eptune who live
hidden in caverns, the pygm ies w ho have spent centuries bent under their
yoke, inhabitants o f the veins o f the earth, the keepers o f the mines, and the
monstrous giants o f the South — these arc not sim ilar as progeny and are not
the descendants o f one original paren t .10
226
4 -- ON THE R E JE C T IO N OF T H E N A T U R A L HISTORY OF M A N
A M O SO DOCTOR ’A R ESELSW
227
THE DISCOVERY Of THE PAST
S E C R E T S OF THE F R E E - T H I N K I N G SALONS
T h e c o n t e m p l a t i o n o j m a n ’s p l a c e in h i s t o r y
T he curiosity o f the Renaissance and the more fanciful traditions o f

the medieval naturalists were united in the person o f Giordano
Bruno, whose views reflected the intense spirit o f enquiry which
moved his contemporaries. The progress o f neither geography nor
chronology allowed for a blind and literal reading o f the Bible. To
study mankind one must have the courage to place mankind within
its historical context; such was the legacy o f the Renaissance to the
free-thinkers. It was the message bequeathed by B ru n o and his
English friends, the renowned explorer Sir Walter Raleigh, Thomas
H arriot and the poet Christopher Marlowe (the irreligious o f the
court o f Elizabeth). Bruno was burnt at the stake for his avowed
heresy, but through such critical intellects as the renegade Giulio
Cesare Vanini and the famous philosopher Tommaso Campanella, he
was to influence Lapeyrere. Pintard has described beautifully this free-
thinking milieu o f the seventeenth century, which gave Lapeyrere the
references, support and stimulation necessary for the publication o f his
work. Here is his portrait o f Vanini, who disturbed the whole o f
Europe with his curiosity and his temerity:
F or that godless man, whose blasphemies shrieked doum the years and seem
to have shaken the hearts o f the faith fu l and filled the defenders o f the fa ith
with terror right up until the devout, apogee o f the reign o f Louis X l l f attack
ing the faint-hearted as they prudently retreated — that impious man had trav
elled widely, studied in N aples and Padua, visited G erm any and the L ow
Countries, shone at the French court and at the palace o f the Archbishop o f
Canterbury, sailed on the A tlantic and the M editerranean; he had been a
priest, a Carm elite m onk and probably chaplain to the Swiss Guard, and he
had preached in the Parisian parishes after a conversion to Anglicanism and a
recantation; he also appeared as a philosopher — bizarrely, one approved by the
doctors o f the Sorbonne, even while his body, still twitching from the gallows
and stained with blood where his tongue had been torn out, was awaiting the
flames by order o f the Parliament of Toulouse.11
Evidently the threat hanging over the heads o f the free-thinkers
was not just formal, and in light o f this it is perhaps easier to under
stand Lapeyrere s behaviour after his arrest. O n 11 March 1657, in the
presence o f cardinals Barberini and Albizzi, Lapeyrere solemnly
abjured his theories. It is not w ithout interest for the history o f
228
4 - ON THE REJECTION OF T H E N A T U R A L HISTORY OF M AN
archaeology that the abjuration took place in front o f the cardinal

with the strongest o f antiquarian credentials, Francesco Barberini,
whose secretary was none other than the famous Cassiano D el Pozzo,
a friend o f Galileo — the man with the ‘paper museum’, a correspon
dent o f Peiresc, and the most learned and systematic archaeologist in
Italy at that time, who, according to a letter to Bourdelot, was in 1640
already contemplating the conversion o f Lapeyrere. 12
Unlike Galileo, Lapeyrere had to wait a long time before the schol
arly world accepted the evidence for men before Adam. The reason
perhaps stems from the fact that the antiquaries o f the day, in so far as
they had read his work (and such men as Aubrey, Stukeley and R hode
might quite possibly have been interested in a work related to their
field o f enquiry), saw in the pre-Adamite idea only a philosophical
suggestion. However, in A n Account o f G reenland, Lapeyrere showed
that w hile he was not a professional antiquary, he was perfectly
capable o f putting forward a geographical and historical case. W hile
he was in Copenhagen he had, after all, debated with the master o f
Scandinavian antiquities, O le W orm , and visited his museum. It was
W orm him self who had given him information on the first inhabi
tants o f Greenland and Iceland, and it was thanks to him that
Lapeyrere was able to contest the theory o f Grotius, who saw the
Americans as the descendants o f the Vikings, who had com e from
Greenland to the coast o f America, where they settled. T h e first
inhabitants o f these regions were not o f Scandinavian origin:
I will therefore tell you what M r Wormius, the most curious person that ever
I met with in the affairs of the north, has communicated to me by word o f
mouth, and in writing. T hey were savages, the original natives o f Greenland
[...]. M r Wormius is o f opinion, that those Skreglingres were not far distant
from the g u lf o f Davis, and perhaps were Americans [.../.13
From his conversations with the learned Dane Lapeyrere gleaned
not only facts but a comparative method which enabled him defini
tively to refute Grotius’ theories and to prepare the way for a polyge-
netic interpretation o f the peopling o f the Americas:
This leads me to a discovery of the m istake o f the author, who has p u b
lished his dissertations concerning the origin o f the Americans, which he
deduces from the Greenlanders; the first inhabitants o f which he would m ake
us believe were Norwegians, and consequently that the first inhabitants o f
A m erica, were originally o f Norway. H e pretends to justify his opinion by
a certain imaginary affinity betwixt some American words that terminate in
L an and the termination o f Land, so frequ ent in the Germ an, Lom bard and
229
THE D IS C O V E R Y OF T H E PAST
Norwegian languages, and the resemblance o f the manner o f living; that is, as
he tells you, betw ixt the A mericans and Norwegians, w ho are, i f you will
believe him, the A llem anni o f Tacitus.14
Lapeyrere took ironic vengeance upon the haughty remarks made
about him by Grotius, and in so doing conducted a methodical lesson
in ethnography. W orm at least had taken the pre-Adamites seriously,
and he wrote to Lapeyrere:
I was already suspecting that on your return from Spain, and fo r love o f
those peoples, you had taken yourself o f f to the Icelanders, Greenlanders, or
even straight to the Americans. [ ...] W hile I was with our Prince we talked a
great deal about your Pre-Adamites, and I had to explain your reasoning: he
was charmed by the novelty o f this discourse, and as I recounted various things
about you and our talks together, he very much regretted that he had not
enjoyed your company w hile you were with us.15
Lapeyrere’s theories, which in France, Italy and Britain were only
discussed in the secrecy o f the liberal salons, were not held to be scan
dalous in Copenhagen, and were the object o f deep discussion
between the old antiquary and his disciple Crown Prince Frederick,
who becam e King o f Denm ark in 1648. Unfortunately, W orm ’s
archaeological work was then almost finished; he was working tena
ciously towards the development and publication o f his collection o f
curiosities which was to becom e the M useum Wormianum. Lapeyrere
offered his theories on the great antiquity o f man to the Scandinavian
and British scholar-travellers, to the excavators o f Germany and to the
collectors o f Italy and France, but they were hardly inclined to wel
com e them; in displacing the question o f the origins o f man from the
field o f description to that o f interpretation, Lapeyrere had trans
formed a question o f chronology into a philosophical problem. It is
true that Girolamo Fracastori, Leonardo da Vinci and Bernard Palissy
before him had suggested that the earth was much older than it
seemed, and that fossils were not created by some spontaneous phe
nom enon by which mineral took on the shape o f animal, but were
living bodies, petrified and buried in the depths o f the earth. Again,
George Owen and afterwards Nicolas Steno suggested a stratigraphi-
cal theory o f the form ation o f the earth which necessitated a long
time-scale, but none o f them took on the cardinal dogma o f
Adamism. Even if some, like R o b ert Hooke in his Micrographia (1665)
and his Lectures and Discourses on E arthquakes (1668), had discreet
doubts about the necessity o f a universal Flood ,16 it was only to sepa
rate more effectively the history o f mankind from the history o f the
230
4 - ON THE R EJE C T IO N OP T H E N A T U R A L HISTORY OF M A N
earth. For the naturalists, the history o f the earth

ran parallel to the history o f mankind, but the dif
ferent lines o f evolution never crossed. Natural
history would have everything to gain from bor
rowing its methods from the human history o f the
antiquaries. Shells and fossils were ‘the Medals,
Urnes, or Monuments o f Nature’, they were:
T he greatest and most lasting M onuments o f A n tiq
uity, w hich , in all probability, will fa r antidate all the
most ancient M onuments o f the World, even the very
Pyramids, O belisks, M ummys, H ieroglyphicks, and
Coins, and will afford more information in N atural
History, than those other pu t altogether will in C iv il.17
These lively words o f R o b e rt H ooke are a
good illustration o f the paradox o f the time: the
naturalists enjoined their colleagues to construct a
natural history upon the model o f antiquarian
history. It never occurred to them to ask whether
S t s x o ’b F ig u &e s 2 0 - 2 5 , n r E x a c t S i z b .
antiquarian history might benefit from natural
history. Shrewd intellects such as Steno or the
Italian painter Agostino Scilla — the Bernard
Palissy o f the seventeenth century, who in 1670 published Vain Specu Plate show ing
geological stratigraphy
lation D isarm ed by the Senses. A R eply Concerning the Petrified M arine
ofT u scan y m ade in
Bodies Found in Various Terrestrial Places — adhered to professions o f faith 1 6 6 9 by N icolas Steno
(1 6 3 8 —8 6 ). S te n o was
which accommodated the biblical chronology, and one can under
D anish, b u t spent a
stand them. T h e idea o f the immensity o f natural as well as human lo n g tim e in Fran ce
history was in the air. But precisely because he had proclaimed such and Italy. In dissecting
a shark fou n d in
an idea, Lapeyrere created a vast aura o f suspicion about himself. Livorno in 1 6 6 6 , he
Everywhere Dutch Calvinists, German Lutherans, and Anglicans and dem onstrated th e true
nature o f fossil shark
Catholics o f all nationalities and disciplines were determined to refute teeth. Step h en G ould
the blasphemer. In eleven years no fewer than seventeen volumes has po inted o u t that
this graphic
appeared with the express intention o f confounding the agitator. representation
Lapeyrere posed a fundamental historical question, and had to wait attributed to J.G .
W in ter, translator o f
two centuries before his theories found any resonance among the Sten o s w ork in to
antiquaries, with the discovery o f the immense prehistoric time-scale. English, was adapted
in order to present
But when all was said and done, in spite o f Leonardo and Palissy and tim e schem atically as
Mercati, most o f his contemporaries still believed in the spontaneous a linear succession o f
events (G ould 1 9 9 0 ,
generation o f fossils and the existence o f thunderbolts. However, the
pp. 9 0 - 9 7 ) .
ideas he had waved in the face o f the scholarly world were to be taken
up in another form in liberal circles. A case in point is a strange book
231
THE D ISC O V ER Y OF T H E P A ST
232
4 - ON THE REJECTION OF T H E NATURAL HISTORY OF M A N
entitled M uham m ad the Turkish Spy: The E ight Volumes o f Letters Writ by Frontispiece of
A gostino Scilla s book ,
a Turkish Spy, supposedly translated from the Arabic by a Genoese,
L a [’a n a s p e c n la z io a c
Giovanni Paolo Marana .18 tii<inânnata tie! senso,
published in 1670.
These apocryphal letters belong to a classic genre o f later seven
A gostm o Scilla
teenth-century literature in which the noble savage and the wise men ( 1 6 2 9 - 1 7 0 0 ) was a
Sicilian painter k now n
o f Egypt (Marana also commissioned an ‘Egyptian’ work) featured
as 'L o sco lorico'. and a
alongside Turks and Persians, who were to take the lead in such fic lively advocate o f the
tions before the Chinese made the Jesuits very unhappy. It allowed the p alaeontological
analysis o f fossils. H e
narrator to stand back and flout convention —to give free rein to crit was interested in the
icism in a less dangerous and more seductive form than the pamphlet. natural sciences and
also had a passion for
According to Paul Hazard, these are books in which ‘it is said that num ism atics.
the coming o f Christ, because this is an embarrassment to reason, is
not true; that the Bible, because it is not clear, is false; and that the
only good lies in admitting only what is evident ’ . 19
Our Turkish spy lost no time in interesting him self in the theories
on the origin o f man which were so cautiously tackled by the anti
quaries o f the day. Besides, the preface tells us that our author was pas
sionate about antiquities:
Though he cannot be called an Antiquary, yet he appears a great Lover o f
Antiquities, and no less an Admirer o f new Discoveries, provided they be both
o f them Matters o f Importance, and worth a wise A lan ’s Regard. F or it does
not belong to either o f these Characters, that a M an is a curious Collector o f
Medals, Images, Pictures, and a Thousand other insignificant Trifles, which can
neither serve to illustrate History, regulate Chronology, nor adjust any
momentous Difficulty in the Records of Tim e, but are only reverenced for
their Rustiness, illegible Characters, and exotick Figure [ ...]. H e loves Antiq
uities, but ‘tis only such as draw the Veil from o ff the Infancy of Tim e, and
uncover the Cradle of the World. 'This makes him insist with so much Z eal
and Passion, on the Records o f the Chinese and Indians.211
We have been warned: the Turkish spy is an antiquary after
Lapeyrere’s own heart, a man unmoved by the fetishistic attitude to
the past (an attitude also decried by Peiresc )21 but animated by the
desire for knowledge, who assumed the right o f criticism and com
parison. T h e historical and palaeontological doctrine o f this spy in
high places represents a perfect development o f the pre-Adamite
theses, one which had rid itself com pletely o f any reference to the
Bible:
O f all the people on the Earth, the Jews seem to have been most guilty o f
imposing on the World an Opinion o f their Antiquity, and aggrandizing their
Line above all the R ace o f Adam. A n d from them the Error is transmitted to
23 3
the Christians; who giving a kind o f implicit and blind Faith to the Hebrew
Historians, have confined the A ge o f the World within the Com pass o f six
thousand Years; whereas, i f other Chronologies be true, it may, fo r ought we
know, be above S ix hundred thousand Years old 22
T h e ‘spy’ was not content with sober criticism o f the antiquaries
and chronologists o f his time, and attacked the dogma which united
them all (even the most enquiring minds among them) in deference
to faith in the biblical tradition. In this he brought to its logical con
clusion the critique o f Lapeyrere, the man who discovered the idea o f
prehistory before the word had even been invented. Indeed, this
Calvinist who ended his life with the Oratorian Fathers, a man o f the
Enlightenm ent before his time, passed on his conviction before his
confession:
H ere lies Lapeyrere, the g oo d Israelite,

H uguenot, C atholic, then pre-A d am ite.
F ou r religions mourn him with one voice,
A n d his indifference was so uncommon,
that after eighty years to m ake his choice,
T h e g oo d man died, an d chose not one am ong th em .23
T h e men o f the Enlightenment were thus well provided with the

necessary tools for archaeological observation: numismatics, epigra
phy, travel, topography, and in certain cases as we have seen, a sense o f
landscape and an interest in the relationship between what appeared
on the surface o f the soil and the layers o f which it was composed. In
addition there were the regional and national traditions. The Scandi
navian taste for ruins and exploration; the passion o f the central Euro
pean antiquaries for taphonomy; the fondness o f the British for the
description o f local antiquities; and the more traditional desire o f
the French and Italians to collect Greek and R o m an antiquities —
all these outlined an archaeology which had little in com m on with
that o f the Renaissance. It was necessary to put some order into the
ever-expanding body o f antiquities. It is true that the ‘manual o f
antiquities’ was not a discovery o f the Enlightenment, and good minds
such as R osinus had already made the attempt at the end o f the
sixteenth century ,24 but the ambitions o f men such as Bernard de
M ontfaucon and the Com te de Caylus were much greater, and more
systematic, than those o f Gronovius and Graevius, for example, who
had tried to bring together the available Greek and R om an docu
mentation at the end o f the seventeenth century .25
234
4 - ON THE R E JE C T IO N OF T H E N A T U R A L HISTORY OF M A N
THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A R C H A E O L O G Y
C O M P IL IN G IMAGES OF O B JE C T S
AND M O N U M E N T S OF THE PAST
B e r n a r d de M o n t f a u c o n
Bernard de M ontfaucon (1655—1741) represents the great B en ed ic

tine tradition o f Saint-M aur. Like Jean M abillon he was also a
palaeographer and a philologist, but during his travels in Italy
(1698—1701) he decided to devote some o f his considerable energy
as an editor o f patristic texts to the study o f antiquities:
D uring the breaks which so often occurred in the editing oft St J o h n
Chrysostom , even in the first volume, I pu blished L ’Antiquite expliquee
et representee en figures, a work which I had been preparing f o r a long
tim e; in Italy I had collected drawings o f ancient monuments o f all kinds
which are to be fo u n d in greater number there than in the other countries o f
Europe. In France I continued to seek out and to have drawings m ade o f
everything which was to be fo u n d in the cabinets oft curiosities, and m onu
ments oft every kin d in town and countryside, and everything to be foun d in
the other countries o f Europe, which I collected either fro m prin ted books or
through the agency o f my frien d s.26
M ontfaucon’s project, as the title clearly suggests, was to illustrate
the monuments o f antiquity in such a way as to make explanation
possible. T h e image was fundamental but it com plem ented the text
and had no value o f its own proceeding from another branch o f
knowledge — in contrast w ith B ia n ch in i’s approach. T h e aim was
above all philological, to establish a strict and intelligible relationship
betw een text and object: ‘These monuments are divided into two
classes: that o f books and that o f statues, bas-reliefs, inscriptions and
medals, two classes, as I have said, w hich are interdependent .’27
For this enterprise to be successful, it was necessary to organise
the work according to a carefully thought out explanatory method.
M ontfaucon vacillated for a time between miscellany and system:
F or a w hile I hesitated to decide upon the m anner I w ould adopt: to
deliver a corpus o f the w hole o f antiquity together seem ed to me to be very
difficult; to present only isolated or unqualified exam ples having little rela
tionship one with the other — this would not overcome the difficulties which
w ould always be met by those wishing to inform themselves o f the w hole o f
235
antiquity, in having recourse to an infinity of books which are very difficult

to fin d.2*
T he aim o f the publication was not ju st scientific. T he compilation
o f such a comprehensive and inform ed record took on an educa
tional function which allowed the volumes o f L ’A ntiquite expliquce to
be used as a manual (and, moreover, Montfaucon suggested that his
readers devote two years to the systematic study o f his work). Its
structure followed a functional order. First came the
gods (and here Varro’s plan can be recognised), then
cults, thirdly the customs o f private life and o f civic
life, ‘wars, transport, major roads, bridges, aqueducts,
navigation’.T h e last section was devoted to funerals,
tombs and mausolea. M ontfaucon ’s scheme was
impressively structured. Illustrations, customs, mate
rial culture in both individual and collective
spheres, sociology and funerary practices: there are
certain predilections. His definition o f archaeology
was built up progressively. T h e first set o f illustra
tions (the gods) was followed by a chapter on cults,
which in turn depended on the appropriate appara
tus, from daily life to great collective enterprises,
and thence back to social matters. M ontfaucon was
not immune to the obsession with funerary matters
which seemed to form the heart o f archaeology; his
last book was devoted to the memorial: memorials
Frontisp iece o f to the dead, whether buried, displayed, cremated, or simply evoked
B ern ard de
by means o f symbolic monuments — standing stones, columns, ceno
M o n tfau con s
L 'A 11tiq 11itc ex p liq u ce , taphs. M ontfaucon’s enterprise was driven not so much by a simple
published in 1722.
interest in monuments as by an am bition to reconstruct the past
T h is im age epitom ises
the ideal o f the within a global perspective. Even though G raeco-R om an civilisation
antiquary at the
was at the heart o f his corpus, M ontfaucon was happy to digress into
b eg in n in g of the
eigh teen th century. eastern and even Gaulish or Germanic territory. His central M editer
ranean vision o f the past prefigured the concept o f the Altertumswis-
senschaft (science o f antiquities) which lay at the heart of
nineteenth-century archaeology:
It is desirable that this work is as well-executed as it is interesting to the
public. H ere the whole o f antiquity is treated; all branches are included and a
great many figures are given for each; these figures arc exactly and precisely
explained to the best of my ability. W hen figures are lacking for certain subjects,
I do not omit to explain these subjects and so complete the scries /.../. W hat I
236
am attempting here is to cover the whole of antiquity in one corpus: by the

term antiquity I mean only that which can be seen, and which can be repre
sented by illustrations; it is nonetheless o f vast extent.29
Ideas, theories, the way things worked —all these were things which
the antiquary could derive from texts. O bjects and monuments offer
knowledge o f a quite different sort, and their interpretation depends
upon the expert’s eye and the draughtsman’s hand. It was Plato’s old
distinction between the world o f
ideas and that o f the senses which led
Montfaucon to his view that archae
ology was the image, and history the
text. In a society where prints were
U rn s and scone
the only means o f reproducing artefacts found in
images mechanically, the visual arts H esse by J .C . Isclin
and published in
played a fundamental role. Illustration M on tfaucon 's
was the technique par excellence o f the L 'A n tii] 11iic c x p liq 11ee.
H ere, am ong the
antiquary — it enabled him to repro G r ae c o - R o 111 a n
duce the object, the monument, the antiquities, appear
w orked flints, for a
landscape, the various traces visible to
lon g tim e regarded
the practised eye. L ’Antiquite expliquec as 'th u n d erb olts’.
was an exercise in methodology in

which each object (or each represen
tation o f an object, for very often
M ontfaucon published things he had
not seen) was assigned a text which
gave it meaning. The learned Benedictine was thus a theoretician, pos
tulating a relationship and a reciprocity between text and image, an
idea which has remained within archaeological discourse ever since.
As a good Benedictine, M ontfaucon was a man for the written
word. The order he sought to install into antiquarian studies derived
from his unequalled knowledge ol literary tradition, but it reflects a
definition of antiquities which goes back to Varro. Since Camden,
W orm , Aubrey and R hode, some antiquaries had explored another
path, one which began with objects, not texts, and one in which
antiquities were collected, studied and described according to the way
in which they were used, rather than according to the meaning
ascribed them by textual tradition. The birth o f this new kind o f anti
quary should com e as no surprise in a context where texts were
increasingly rare, and the monuments o f the past were farther away
from the models o f Graeco-Rom an antiquity.
237
THE F O U N D A T I O N OF A S C IE N C E
OF O B JE C T S AND M O N U M E N T S
A n n e C l a u d e P h ili p p e de Turbieres
de G r i m o a r d de P es te ls de L e v i s ,
C o m t e de C a y l u s
Elevations and plan o f T h e C om te de Caylus, as we have seen, proposed to replace the

M o u n t G ergovie,
philological model with an experimental one, in contrast to the clas
execu ted fo r the
C o m te de Caylus by sical descriptio and interpretatio, and to turn the antiquary into a kind
D ijo n , an en g in eer in
o f physicist o f the past.30 The count was from a very different genera
th e province o f
A uvergne. T h e tion to that o f the learned Benedictine, nor had he spent his life
precision o f the
buried in esoteric tomes before becom ing possessed by the demon o f
topograp hical studies
carried o u t under antiquities. B orn in 1692, this scion o f the high nobility had begun
C aylus’s supervision his career in the military (like M ontfaucon before him), but attracted
by bridge and
highw ay engineers by adventure he accompanied the French ambassador to Constan
dem onstrates the tinople and visited the coast o f Asia M inor before in 1718 beginning
o peration o f rigorous
standards. his life as a dilettante and patron o f the arts. He next took up a place
in the Academie de Peinture, then in the Academie des Inscriptions
et Belles-lettres. Caylus was not, however, a collector in the narrow
sense. W hat interested him about the art o f his time, and that o f the
past, was the ways in which it developed, and the techniques o f
drawing and painting (he was him self an excellent engraver). His
wealth allowed him to extend patronage to Parisian artists, and to
acquire antiquities through a network o f devoted correspondents as
far afield as Alexandria and Syria. H e was a new Peiresc, and if he was
less learned and less the encyclopaedist than his illustrious predeces
sor, he was ju st as thirsty for knowledge. H e was surrounded by such
men as Pierre M ariette, Jean-Jacques Barthelem y and Charles Le
Beau, all o f w hom counted among the art- and history-lovers o f
Paris. This man o f the world came late to antiquities, but with what
passion! He was soon in touch with all the Italian antiquaries o f his
time, particularly the most active o f them, Father Paciaudi. H e
seemed to be a ‘hunting dog on the trail o f antiquities’, but he was
no collector:
I am not creating a cabinet — vanity not being my objective; I care not at
all f o r showy things, but fo r the bits and pieces o f agate, stone, bronze, pottery,
glass, which may serve in whatever way to discover som e practice or the hand
o f a m aker.31
238
r i* u h U ' d c l a A A o n t a ^ 'n e c le C e ig o v ia .
G rrun' cLini le. f . y, p i . l e t . a n fij. M ■ J o C a y /u J.
I’roll I Hi i' lx Ji^n c 0,1), clu.|>Itu
Blmntyii' I'
f:
,',1W l v
v *. &
m k
M jg&
* , I'
fy.V.
239
THL DISCOVERY OF THF. P A S T
<^S r„r , s. &.«. Ji He admitted to deriving more plea

7
sure trom fragments than from intact
objects, from masterpieces, ‘the beau
tifully-preserved pieces, those cold
Apollos, those beautiful so-called
Venuses’ .32 O nce his crates o f antiqui
ties were unpacked his only thought
was to make them available to the
scholarly world, ‘T h e antiquities
C
arrive, I study them , I have them
drawn by up-and-com ing young
D raw ing o f the pierre people. This gives them the means to live and to study.’33 In short, his
levee in Poitiers,
collection had more to do with the laboratory than with the cabinet
execu ted for the
C o m te de Caylus. o f an amateur. He sought to experim ent rather than to illustrate. His
T h is study by the
contribution to archaeology is expressed by his numerous notes pub
en g in eer D uchesne
is very different from lished by the Academie des Inscriptions, but his master wTork is still
that published in
the Recueil d ’antiquit.es egyptiennes, etrusques, grecqucs, romaines et gauioises.
Braun and
H o g e n b erg ’s atlas in It was published in seven volumes in Paris between 1752 and 1768,
1600 (see p. 14). and was distinguished from its predecessors by its determination to
A com parison of the
two drawings shows present only original documents:
the progress m ade in I restricted m y self to publishing in this com pendium only those things
two centuries.
which belong, or belonged, to me. I had them drawn with the greatest ex ac
titude, and I dare say that the descriptions arc no less faithful. G ood for
tune, and som e sm all expenditure, are insufficient to swell personal pride
and lead one away from the truth. M y taste for the arts has not. led to any
desire f o r possession . [.. f A ntiquities are there for the extension of kn ow l
edge. T hey explain the various usages, they shed light upon their obscure or
little-know n makers, they bring the progress o f the arts before our eyes and
serve as models to those w ho study them. B ut it must be said that the an ti
quaries hardly ever saw them in this way; they regarded them only as a
supplem ent to the proofs of history, or as isolated texts open to the longest
com m entaries ,34
N o antiquary before Caylus had expressed so clearly the primacy
o f knowledge over the desire to possess, or insisted so vigorously
on that first-hand experience o f the object which governs archaeo
logical knowledge. N o one before him (and very few after) had so
explicitly criticised the philological interpretative model which the
men of the Renaissance had applied to monuments. I f the study o f
antiquities had anything to do with the experimental method, then
the paradigm o f textual interpretation was not enough, and the
240
interpretation o f the archaeologist, like the logic o f the physicist,

was capable o f demonstration. To make that possible, some laws had
to be established:
T h e drawing provides the principles, comparison provides the means o f
applying them, and this way o f proceeding in some way imprints in the mind
the predilections o f a nation, so that i f during excavation one finds something
foreign to the country one might conclude, without fear o f error, that it sprang
from the hand o f an artist who was him self foreign ,35
T h e key role o f the image in the definition o f a culture and a
period had already been emphasised by Bianchini, but Caylus went
much further and made the graphic representation o f every object
one o f the rules o f the antiquary. Each object was
capable o f revealing constant traits which estab
lished its cultural and geographical origins. Caylus
was proposing none other than a typological
theory, which is the ancestor o f all archaeological
reasoning. T he inferences he drew were not limited
to the characterisation o f origin. H e set out to elu
cidate the diachronic dimension necessary for the
construction o f an evolutionary typology:
Once the cultural character o f a nation has been estab
lished, one has only to fo llo w its progress or its changes
[ . . It is true that the second operation is more difficult
than the first. T he tastes oj one people differ from those o f
another as clearly as the prim ary colours differ fro m each
other, while the variations in national taste in different
centuries can be viewed as the the very subtle shades o f
one colour.ib
I f every ob ject could be assigned a place and
tim e by virtue o f an observable and quantifiable
cultural determ inism , then the antiquary had in his possession a Plate from C aylus’$
R ecu eil d ’autiquites
powerful instrument o f logic capable o f ordering similar objects in
show ing an archaic
series. In developing a double principle o f evolution and cultural bron ze figure o f a
h u n ter from Sardinia.
distinction, Caylus helped lay the foundations o f a descriptive typology
It reveals Caylus s
central to m odern archaeology. Despite its lack o f order and dis fascination for all
kinds o f antiquities.
jo in ted com position, the R ecueil announced a new era in archae
ology, one w hich was m ore attentive to objects, more sure o f its
descriptions and its definition o f types, more interested in technology
and the reconstruction o f processes. W hether taking an interest in
ancient painting, the manufacture o f vases or the techniques o f
241
V /w 0< J t u n p b ilM V r. tk- ( ^ )m d coining, Caylus put the greatest

importance on observation, on plac
ing the object w ithin the process o f
its manufacture. H e emphasised to
the antiquaries o f his tim e that no
study o f antiquities would ever be
satisfied with the repeated perusal o f
texts. O n the contrary, a part o f his
tory was concealed within objects,
and provided one approached them
in the right way, they might be
made to speak:
T he more I read, the less I can confi
Plan o f the dently rely upon the authors with respect to the arts. O ne must see the works
am phitheatre at
in order to sp eak about them, and have a very sure and w ell-established
G rand, Lorraine, m ade
fo r th e C o m te de know ledge o f them in order to write about them .37
Caylus.
THE BURIED CITIES OF V E S U V I U S
Plan o f th e fountain W hile M ontfaucon was bringing the publication o f L ’A ntiquite

o f N im es, drawn by
expliqu ee to a conclusion in 1711, a colonel o f the Austrian army,
D am u n fo r th e C o m te
de Caylus. T h e Prince d’Elbeuf, who owned a small property near Portici, discov
m o n u m en t at the site
ered statues and inscriptions o f exceptional quality at the bottom o f a
o f th e spring was
discovered in 1 7 3 8 . shaft dug by a peasant. H e made a gift o f three almost intact statues
to Prince Eugene o f Savoy, commander in ch ief o f the H oly R om an
Empire. After the P rin ce’s death the statues were acquired by Augus
tus II, Elector o f Saxony and King o f Poland, whose daughter Amalia
was to becom e queen as wife o f Charles III, King o f Spain and
Naples. Archaeologists o f the nineteenth century tried to show a link
between the royal marriage and the renewal o f explorations in 1738.
For his part, the man in charge o f the site, the Spanish engineer
R o c c o Joach in Alcubierre, claimed to have taken the initiative
during the course o f building works which he was carrying out on
the royal property at Portici. Starting from P rince d’E lb eu f’s shaft
and galleries, w hich were fortunately placed in the centre o f the
theatre o f Herculaneum , the excavators soon found the stuff o f
dreams: inscriptions, statues o f bronze and marble, and above all,
uniquely in the history o f the G raeco-R om an world, paintings
which had been rapidly buried, and thus protected, by the disaster
242
I{ V*** » '
\ 'j f<pir>C ifcffU'H1}* *
,/ Q l
t vi•.:/
243
244
4 - ON THE R EJEC T IO N OF T H E N A T U R A L HISTORY OF M A N
w hich overwhelmed the town. Ten years later, in 1748, the king T h e discovery o f
H erculaneum and
opened equally spectacular excavations on the site o f Pompeii under
view o f the main
the direction o f Alcubierre. It is hard for us to imagine today the street in Pom peii,
drawings from Voyage
excitem ent and interest these excavations unleashed, at a time when
pittoresqne de X aples et
this was practically the only royal archaeological site in the whole de Sicile by the A bbe
S a in t-N o n , published
o f Europe. (W hen, some years later, the Duke o f Parma summoned
m 1 782. T h e discovery
Paciaudi, the faithful correspondent and friend o f Caylus, to direct o f the sites o f
excavations at Veleia, it was with the express aim o f rivaling the H erculaneum and
Pom peii du ring the
Neapolitans.) Herculaneum and Pompeii, though, had something first h alf o f the
special that distinguished them from any other archaeological site, eighteenth cen tury
gave rise to a great
however prestigious. T h e two cities buried by the eruption o f enthusiasm for
Vesuvius were caught in full swing, before their populace had a excavation . H owever,
the techniques
chance to save their most useful possessions. N either had their suc depicted here were
cessors used the site as a quarry for construction materials. W ith the still rather
rudim entary.
help o f Bernardo Tanucci, a cultured m inister and disciple o f the
great scholar M uratori, Charles III undertook the excavation o f the
buried cities as a personal project, the success o f which was to win
for the kingdom the admiration o f the whole world. Unfortunately
the king and his minister had found in Alcubierre no R u dbeck or
Aubrey. T h e Spanish engineer and his associates were in thrall to the
treasure-hunting tradition o f excavation, o f the most rapid exhum
ation o f the greatest number o f antiquities possible. Instead o f clear
ing the monuments by means o f open trenches they continued the
gallery technique begun by Prince d’E lbeuf and deprived themselves
o f any overall topographical understanding o f the two sites. The more
enlightened travellers attracted by the unique spectacle, like Horace
Walpole, noticed this from the start o f the operation:
There might certainly be collected great light from this reservoir o f antiqui
ties, i f a man o f learning had the inspection o f it; if he directed the working,
and would m ake a journal of the discoveries. But I believe there is no ju di
cious choice made of directors,3X
President de Brasses confirm ed this opinion in his travel journal a
few years later.39 Alcubierre had organisational talents, but this officer
in the Engineers believed more in the military technique o f gallery-
digging than in the surface excavation w hich was the rule when
confronted with deposits less difficult to deal with than those o f
Herculaneum. Pompeii and Herculaneum posed a triple problem to
the antiquaries o f the eighteenth century: how to explore such a
huge and teeming area, how to organise the museum and the protec
tion o f the site, and how to publish it. O n all three counts the king
245
and his counsellors seem to have made bad choices — not because
they were incom petent or stupid, but because Italian antiquaries o f
the period since the Renaissance had not managed to develop the
field techniques necessary for the excavation, recording and presenta
tion o f evidence (with the isolated exception o f Bianchini’s work in
R o m e ). In Scandinavia these questions had been mastered, as they
went hand in hand with the concept o f antiquarian work which put
the excavators in the service o f the state. In Herculaneum and Pom
peii the excavations were primarily on behalf o f the king, to collect
objects suitable to adorn his palace at P ortici.T hus there were mea
sures to prevent the fraudulent sale and theft o f objects which were
as sought-after as the sites were famous. There was also a fierce ban
on the drawing or description o f the objects placed in the museum,
the publication o f w hich was reserved for the Academia Ercolanese
founded by the king. T h e latter privately published sumptuous vol
umes, which were inaccessible to scholars at large. It is easy to under
stand how the enlightened visitors from throughout Europe who had
seen the sites —from President de Brasses to C ochin, from Walpole to
W inckelm ann — protested against the management o f the excava
tions. Scipione Maffei ofVerona criticised the stupid gallery system
and the ill-considered sorting o f the objects whereby those less
worthy o f attention were simply thrown away; W inckelm ann fumed
against the treatment o f the paintings, and the C om te de Caylus fret
ted. Conservation posed even greater problems than excavation.
Because o f the galleries, the paintings had to be cut into pieces to get
them out, and so the murals were treated like ordinary pictures. As
well as these technical problems, work was under way to treat the
remains in the same way as modern objects: while the murals were
cut up and framed to hang on the walls o f the Portici palace, the ves
sels were viewed as pieces o f Sevres or Meissen. All this criticism and
the great plethora o f publications (mainly unauthorised) which the
vast public interest brought did lead, however, to some belated
improvements: from 1763 the excavation at Pompeii was open to the
sky, and the Abbe Baiardi, who was responsible for publication — a
good scholar but a poor antiquary — was replaced by more dynamic
men. Due to the vicissitudes o f history, it was to be a long time yet
before expectations were met —the expectations o f all the antiquaries
o f Europe, as well as those o f the great travellers who, from Goethe
to Chateaubriand, were so taken with the poetry o f the buried towns
o f Vesuvius. B e that as it may, the discovery o f Herculaneum and
246
4 - ON THE R E JE C T IO N OF T H E N A T U R A L H I S T O R Y OF MAN
Pompeii had transformed the taste for antiquity. Architects, scholars

and travellers from all over Europe visited the site o f the two towns
and com pleted their picture o f what they had already admired in
R o m e: daily life, the ‘bits and pieces’ o f the past which were so dear
to Caylus, all found their way into the image o f antiquity.
SYSTEMATIC EXCAVATIONS
Observation, survey and explanation
I f the scientific perspective o f the antiquaries had changed so

abruptly and radically with Caylus, it was because their relationship
with the monuments o f the past had been profoundly modified since
the beginning o f the seventeenth century. France, it is true, had not
seen the kind o f systematic development o f regional studies that was
supported by the state in northern Europe, or driven by scholarly
curiosity in Britain. Som ething had changed, though, beginning in
the last decades o f the century. This was demonstrated by the work o f
R o g er de Gaignieres (1642—1715), among others .40 D e Gaignieres
was equerry to the Duke o f Guise, then in 1671 to his aunt, M ile
de Guise, and had been governor o f the principality o f Joinville.
H is scholarly reputation was such that he played a part in the
T rium ph al arch at
Langres, a drawing
taken from R o g e r
de G aignieres s album
Antiquite des Gaules
(1 7 0 0 ). H e was o ne
o f th e first to attem pt
a survey o f the
antiquities o f France.
241
T h e am phitheatre at
Arles, a drawing dated
1 6 6 6 taken from
R o g e r de G aignieres s
album , A ntiqtiite des
Guttles. T h is view
owes m ore to
R enaissan ce taste
than to the vision o f
eig h teen th -cen tu ry
engineers.
Illustrations o f the education o f the heir to the throne, the Duke o f Burgundy. Although
antiquities o fA ix ,
Gaignieres was a Parisian, he had spent most o f his life travelling
by Gaillard de
L o n jum eau (1 760). the kingdom, collecting curiosities and commissioning drawings o f
T h e precision and
anything which he felt was worthy o f interest. Aided by his valet,
attention to detail
show the progress Rem y, and afterwards by a draughtsman, Louis Bourdan, he had
m ade in the depiction copies made o f everything he could in the way o f manuscripts,
o f m on u m en ts and
antiquities. funerary monuments and remains o f every period. His great originality
lay in the emphasis he placed on the medieval and modern periods.
Renaissance collectors’ cabinets were dominated by objects from
antiquity. At the end o f the seventeenth century attention was turned
to more recent periods, as if the historical universe had expanded
to touch the contem porary world. Gaignieres’ interest embraced
portraits, the landscape, customs and festivals:
T he enormous encyclopaedia o f the world created and inhabited by man
assembled by Gaignieres form s a kin d o f counterpart or complement to the
cabinets o f curiosities in which the natural world is concentrated, and in which
man is merely first among the animals. Gaignieres is no more interested in
ancient history than in natural curiosities, which are strictly banished from the
collection ,41
Schnapper is right to highlight the novelty o f the project and its
execution, but his judgem ent o f antiquity seems a little harsh. Gaig
nieres, unlike Peiresc, did not put antiquity at the top ol his list, but
248
A N T iq y iT iB S ;)
I® L A v il.L E D ATX [
F O S D E E . . I
P A R i S E X T W S CALVINUS i
E N 6 3 l D £, I . A FO N D A T T O N '
DE R O H E ||
A M E S S .IR E L O t H S , H E N R I
., x >e G A I ILX*A R P ;L!

C H E V A L IE R jj
B E r/ o R U R E B E M A L T J t-
aP irr6o.
UO-0H du.tP' P altri (U Pett-e,rc d e rn c rc le P t iL t u r d f i/ a n f e W a p a r t i t d c.r M m * - d tm - T a .v J .d ip liu rteu iw e a t t t c u r j

O.f'ltlljtit* ijltt II h.i'iu,' c!e lo n p u e t u - c l 7 d,' l a n j c u r fn n n v at/u ri f u e la l a z e cU q. p 'i c d r J c d u x n u tre dati>r led' creiêtTteii.hi'fdiiif'
da/uv !c tuat.r A it {a i'r/i.t'u n t/e 7a itiii.i'.i'c dt'tf c,tiV /u civ d e L a p l u t ’ eta I 'H o t e i d c V t /l e . c-f.r c t c lr u r ,/'Old ilatus- in . c o i n ' -ife la.
, 1 ,ie O u it la r c l r ^ o iij u jn c t m V e t d a l r c n . J . fe p rc a v n ia -itc /t d .w ru i n s .r actimlled- J a l a p i r a n u d e In o m p lih tc e i d c
u n c a n f r rju&fxl c l e v e r C aijti.r M a r u u t ' a i 'lw n n e u r dc. (a V u te ra v c jt u l r e m p o rfa , r u r h 'p u r ct.-iU nit'1/e.s b a d a r e s p t a z i c Mi- t j u c u l i k r
r e l "i c d ’u -in x sm p k
Ie U l lo
I n q. /d e l fa . Jr>
^ w i t r c d ie Varc
r ivup r<ur da /, la tftx. J ’. r'ciidcj--J_\ a r n m n .PLu'ie q i u t u ld u m u ji a u c L v a i i t {L>
U HctitaumtpfietU'etdgrs sL(a Victcdt vt,r a-vL la.V'illedM.uxi. a. p a rtie s d c.rik 3l^ ^ U mafhrc quit.,,. <]ui ont I’tu'te d a w In. mai.ron. d u S f 'F a b ie B c r r i t l i
!<• du.J. '■P chut ter i t trouvc a , r ±o. dans- lg? b r r a / a u . tUtirus- de M k & Iic - CtiaMvtufe- \
■’la,FataxL- d u - P a l a ^ b M i a A j x (n ,b 3 t dc, ta> fo n d xU io n d e JK a ttu j j a r S a x J r u t r C a h n t t t L r q-m ,x c lrm#M£- c a x J i e * p e t * b d tifc e -ffh ira h iu r

d.Ci/'ftt,rtj-du:lljyn.r cl l e z x * p h o f P d r I n . T n u r a p e l l e c d u c h & p e r o t i. a u - r o i i t d c p o .r c .r l t * r h,lrc>f-tte«)' n tic te tu f *S'&Tt-tserci-u'L‘f tin- P a .i s ; 2-. I a
' T o u r a p e U e c d e J 'd 'M i ( r c q u t , r e d dxrC arhoL ix u a : P r i .fo n r u e r s , . ^ t a J ^ ^ b n A r 'V o u r u ro lca t j u t .s e L rtn u v t A dn*r L .r n u n ic ^ r
h a iw s & $ if ., d e nitttfut q u e . U ro ta ru L e d c 3 Colanwt&j- d * rrp&fAiK&TXnr? crttl'i’^ ^ , , d z h ! e u u .
249
that did not prevent him from being an excellent explorer in that
field, one who has left us a mass o f surveys o f monuments which, but
for him, would be lost. He viewed illustration both as an instrument
o f learning and a means o f protecting the monuments o f the past. In
his view the survey o f monuments was an imperative, and he came up
with the idea o f a systematic inventory o f antiquities, an idea new to
France but very close to Camden and Aubrey. In 1703 Gaignieres
approached the C om te de Pontchartrain, a tutor o f the Academies,
with a plan to organise a survey o f the antiquities o f France:
R o m a n building T he king wishing to preserve all the monuments which may be o f some
know n as the Tem ple
importance, as much to the royal household as to the advantage o f the great,
o f Vasso at C le r m o n t-
Ferrand, from noble and illustrious fa m ilies o f his kingdom, and to illustrate the general his
A ntiquites d ’Auvergne by
tory o f France, which has been very imperfectly treated until now, in compari
Pierre de Beaum esnil,
c. 17 8 0 . Beaum esnil son with that o f most other nations, H is M ajesty having been informed that
co m b in ed the taste for this has only happened because o f the little care taken in listing and conserv
antiquities w ith a sense
o f landscape: his ing the monuments, and principally those o f his ancestors, which seem to have
drawings were m ore been more neglected than the others. It is his pleasure to m ake remedy, since
picturesque than those
o t the engineers. every day an infinite num ber o f notable monuments is destroyed. H is
M ajesty therefore intends to have them drawn and described.42
His ambition to keep records o f the historic monuments and thus
slow down their eventual destruction placed him among the most
250
4 — ON THE R EJECTIO N OF T H E N A T U R A L HISTORY OF M A N
enlightened collectors o f his time. T he range

o f his interests was as encyclopaedic as Peiresc’s,
and he well understood what a contribution
the strict discipline o f m onumental survey
could make to the knowledge o f the past. His
project received little response from the king
or from the Academie des Inscriptions, which
was still in its infancy, but it was taken up by
the engineers — the principal authors o f the
changes that were modifying the French
landscape. In effect the big developments, the
building o f roads and fortifications, were
churning up the subsoil to reveal the buried
monuments. The fortifications built by Vauban
led to the discovery o f R om an amphitheatres
at M etz and Besanôn, which up until then
had been little known, or ignored .43 T he
bridge-builders, encouraged by Trudaine,
D irector o f Bridges and Highways, put their skills and their talent for T h e ‘T ou r M a g n e’ at
N im es, a drawing
observation at the disposal o f Caylus, and o f the cause in general;
from R ecits des anciens
they sent him admirable records o f their discoveries, which supplied monuments by A n n e de
R u lm a n ( 1 6 2 5 ) .T his
numerous illustrations and notes for volume three o f the Recueil. The
co m p ilation form ed
idea o f a survey o f the antiquities o f Gaul was born. Pierre de the basis o f a survey
o f G a llo -R o m a n
Beaumesnil, a talented draughtsman, undertook a survey o f monu
antiquities w h ich was
ments in France with the support o f the Academie des Inscriptions to in flu en ce de
and the financial help o f N ecker; this he proposed to publish as R u lm a n s successors.
Recherches generates sur les antiquites et monuments de la France avec les

diverses traditions. His energy and fame allowed him to survey antiq
uities in almost every province, from the central regions to the south,
with the support o f the intendants. In the old R om an colonies o f
southern Gaul finds multiplied. T he discovery in Arles in 1651 o f a
R om an statue (the Venus o f Arles) sparked o ff a lively debate as to
its identification, and prompted an excavation. T h e town o f Nimes
subsidised the excavation and preservation o f the temple o f Diana in
1689. In 1738 the discovery o f a sanctuary o f Nemausus in Nimes
led to plans for a huge p ark,‘Les Jardins de la Fontaine’, the creation
o f which incurred the wrath o f W inckelm ann .44 Almost everywhere
the intendants took an interest in archaeology — in N orm andy it
was the councillor Foucault, a well-known collector and friend o f
M ontfaucon; in the Auvergne the intendant Chazerat, who organised
251
R om an
legionary
tom bs, a
drawing from
Jea n -D a n ie l
Sch o ep flin s
com pilation
(1 7 5 1 ).
D iscovered
by the tow n
gates o f old
Strasburg, the
tom bs were
accurately
drawn in situ.
252
4 - ON THE REJECTION OE T H E NATURAL HISTORY OF M A N
excavations with Beaumesnil on his estate, Lezoux, and thus discov

ered the most important pottery factory in Gaul. Felix Le R oyer de
La Sauvagere, a king’s engineer and head o f the Corps o f Engineers,
was interested in Breton antiquities. H e identified the Carnac align
ments as a R om an camp ,45 which earned him the disapprobation o f
Christophe-Paul de R o b ien , a magistrate in the Breton Parliament,
who devoted his leisure to the study o f the megaliths o f Brittany but
attributed them to the M igration period. These errors show what
chronological difficulties assailed the men o f the Enlightenm ent
when chance brought them face to face with prehistoric m onu
ments. But such aberrations — from which ‘professional’ antiquaries
like M ontfaucon and Caylus were not exempt — should not detract
from their merits, which are evident in the quality o f their surveys
and in the attention paid to the objects they discovered — evident, in
short, in the patient creation o f an archaeological tradition. O ne has
only to leaf through one o f the great compilations, like that o fje a n -
Daniel Schoepflin, the most famous antiquary o f Strasbourg at that
time, to gauge just what had been accomplished. This brilliant profes
sor o f oratory at Strasbourg was a
RVDERA THEATfU RiSMCI «jfcxviix.
disciple o f M ontfaucon and protege
o f the C hancellor d’Aguesseau; in
1751 he published A lsaciae illustratae,
celtica, romanica, francica, which was
the culm ination o f long years o f
philological research and scholarly
travels in Alsace. Schoepflin, a man o f
letters and Humanist, was certainly
closer to M ontfaucon than to Caylus,
but the quality o f his descriptions
and illustrations render his book a
model o f regional historical geogra T h eatre at Augst, from Schoepflin (1 7 5 1 ). Schoepflin and Caylus
w ere the finest French antiquaries o f th eir generation. H owever,
phy. In it he presented the results
Schoepflin s plan o f the Augst theatre is m u ch less accurate than
o f excavations at the R om an villa o f A m erb ach ’s o f 1 5 8 2 (see p. 148).
Augst (A u g u sta R a u r ic a ), and the

discovery o f R om an burials at the
gates o f the old town o f Strasburg.
Pages 2 5 4 —5: B reto n m egaliths, drawings from C h risto p h e-P au l de
There was also a systematic excava R o b ie n s co m p ilation . R o b ie n ( 1 6 9 8 - 1 7 5 6 ) was a m agistrate o f the
tion subsidised by the royal govern B reto n Parliam ent and seig n eu r o f L o cm an aq u er; h e mav be
regarded as th e fou n der o f B re to n archaeology. H e com m issioned
ment. In 1750 the civic engineer th e excavation o f o ne o f the m ost fam ous m egalithic sites in
Legendre identified an important Brittany, con vin ced that the standing stones w ere G allic tom bs.
253
254
4 - ON THE R E J E C T IO N OF T H E N A T U R A L HISTORY OF M A N
255
G allo-R om an site at Chatelet, between Saint-D izier and Joinville in

Champagne. In 1772 an ironmaster from the neighbouring village o f
Bayard, Grignon, decided to excavate the site and swiftly managed to
engage the goodwill o f the Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres,
and the support o f the king. Discoveries mounted up, and in 1774
Grignon was able to publish two numbers o f the B ulletin o f E x cav
ations C arried Out by Order o f the King o f a R om an Town, on the Little
M ountain o f Chatelet. Grignon was one o f those positive individuals
who brought to archaeology the techniques o f a true fieldworker:
topographical survey and analysis, drawing and description o f finds,
observation o f variations in the terrain
and o f conditions o f discovery:
H is M ajesty ordered these excavations to
continue [ ...] . A rm ed with this authority, we
began by digging across the w hole extent o f
the mountain a trench three feet wide, which
varied in depth, and a second across the
sm aller dimension, which crossed the first at
Topographical map o f right angles. B y this method we fo u n d that the w hole surface o f L e C hatelet
the tow n o f C h atelet, 0CCupje(J a nd there had even been houses as far as the top o f the
by P ie rre -C le m e n t
G rig n o n . mountain /.../. T he total extent o f the excavations to date is 8 ,5 7 3 toises
carrees [c. 1 7 ,0 0 0 sq. m], and we estimate the earth extracted fro m the vari
ous diggings at 4 ,6 5 4 toises cubes [ c .9 ,0 0 0 cu. m]. A ll o f this urn dug
thoroughly, down to the rock which forms the body o f the mountain, and we
have reproduced the plan and section in the plate which is attached to this
short work. We also drew a very small-scale plan o f the extent o f the excava
tions taken from a large-scale topographical plan. T hese two plans are the
work o f my son, who, independently o f this difficult work, has carried out all
excavation work with as much z ea l and energy as intelligence, the main direc
torial work being reserved to us, also the responsibility fo r the cleaning o f the
antiques, o f reconciling the pieces, o f classifying them in my museum, o f draw
ing most o f them and o f writing their history .46
A worthy rival to Caylus, the ironmaster from Bayard followed his
programme to the letter: to observe, survey and explain antiquities
for their own sake, and to make them sources o f knowledge by
means o f a clearly defined and controllable series o f operations. O f
course there was still a wide gap between G rign on ’s work and a
modern stratigraphic excavation, but as Pinon has emphasised, he was
one o f the first in France to develop a complete programme o f land
scape archaeology.
256
1 ‘l . i n b b d u jt m i,.t t o t a u t k
.Surtm't' il<' 1BnpWement de k ViUe .
.'I . t/ij;. yu. ^ iu iv h .«.Ttir .<!• hnsf

X. OraMtt fimamznt ^ »o - uCu BjtuJ j.-iv.- few
O. (uac.« i&rac fs u r fit/ays .iu Raini.
P . t.txm.i fx w W ./f ■
- <' '■:70.
R. /!nv <fWi l l w ttj jrr:Jnft.'OJ .ft*
T. /S**- Tftxjrle .A- Diu\-/mj

V. ! '■ r.mp/t pja.'u*nj /»■•:.nM
; x . 7^ .-.- fT.!(u
Y. t w .>
K. Ha:oJ.
-W . CH ant • dV
BB. iW m ; J f h m t m ^
CC. .11.?*-*-% Jmt Urcaier, AnJi la ;*v#r . Ifttxp
G en eral plan o f the excavations at C h ate le t, drawn by P ie rre -C le m e n t G rig n o n in 1 7 7 4 .

T h e techniques o f excavation and survey em ployed by th e G rig n o n s, fath er and son,
anticipated archaeological m ethods o f th e n in eteen th century.
257
THE DISCOVERY OF THE PAST
THE C R IS IS IN
M E D I T E R R A N E A N A R C H A E O L O G Y
Jo h a n n Joachim W inckelmann
O pp osite, above: Throughout the eighteenth century able minds had tried to render
L as Incantadas,
intelligible the ever-increasing mass o f discoveries, sometimes in the
Thessalon ica, by Jam es
Stuart. A C o rin th ian face o f the jibes o f their contemporaries, such as Diderot and Voltaire.
co lon n ad e surm ounted
It was left to the son o f an obscure cobbler from Stendal in Prussia to
by a pillared storey,
secon d cen tu ry AD. revise completely the West’s attitude towards G raeco-R om an works.
M id -eighteenth-century Germany, w hich w or
shipped daily at the shrine o f Greek art, was to
find in W inckelm ann an inspired singer o f the
praises o f antique art, who expressed in a new
kind o f Germ an prose the matchless quality o f
Greek art. There had been no shortage o f schol
arly works on the subject before, but W in ckel
mann proposed to put order into the chaos o f
learning, and dared to construct a stylistic
chronology where his predecessors had been
content with iconographic commentaries. H ow
ever, his decisive influence was not due to his
technical approach alone, but to his interpreta
tion o f the works o f antiquity, which became the
supreme bible o f N eo-classicism . Seen thus,
Greek art was not the agent o f a particular, his
torically-determ ined response, but represented
the ideal o f a perfect and absolute beauty which
Above: A rchaeologists was embodied in the works o f Pheidias. Stylistic analysis was not, as
at w ork, frontispiece
Caylus thought, a technical device, but the key to the understanding
o f G uiseppe A n ton io
G u attan i’s M om nnenti o f an aesthetic. W inckelm ann transcended archaeology in the rele
antichi iut'diti (1 7 8 4 ),
vance o f his analyses, but above all in the quality o f his style and the
show ing excavators in
a rom an tic setting. ambition o f his aesthetic. T h e social milieu o f the dilettanti, writers,
artists and antiquaries found in his work a frame o f reference and a
O pp osite, below :
M onum ent o f
philosophy o f art: a m ajor event which had practical as well as intel
Philopappus, from lectual consequences. From the middle o f the eighteenth century the
T h e A ntiquities o f A thens
by Jam es Stuart and
archaeological voyage to Italy, and soon after to Greece and Turkey,
N ich olas R e v e tt became both a social and a cultural necessity. Philology and aesthetics
( 1 7 6 1 ) .T h e ir travels
— the voyages brought the antiquarian tradition into the modern
and surveys revealed a
n ew im age o f G reece. world. ‘I came to R o m e ,’ says W inckelm ann, ‘to open the eyes o f
258
4 - ON THE R EJE C T IO N OF T H E N A T U R A L HISTORY OF M A N
259
those who will com e after m e .’47 W inckelm ann immediately played a
decisive role among the connoisseurs o f R om e, who with their out
posts in France, Germany, Scandinavia and Britain, formed a kind o f
summary o f the arts in Europe. Around the cardinals’ palaces, around
the pope and the various ambassadors, there gathered a crowd o f
artists, aristocratic travellers and scholars. This was very fertile ground
for the rediscovery o f antiquity. It was not the revelatory kind o f
antiquity, w hich displayed ‘a whole race o f statues’ to the dazzled eyes
o f the men o f the Renaissance. It was related to a craze for the archi
tecture, sculpture and pottery which was the fruit o f the scholarly
researches o f the antiquaries o f the preceding period. At the end o f
the eighteenth century it was no longer only R om an antiquities
which became accessible: the Greek temples o f Paestum and Sicily
and sites in Greece and Asia M inor were available for inspection by
the bolder spirits. The knowledge o f antiquity expanded in space as
well as in time. T h e Grand Tour was undertaken to view these
ancient landscapes, but also to find among the evocative ruins and
their architecture the yeast o f inspiration, the elements o f a new style
o f architecture w hich was to change the face o f most European
cities. The fashion for antiquities can be explained as much by the
development o f ideas as by a new social demand, and the explosion
in travel literature was to sustain its momentum. T h e Voyage du jeu n e
Anacharsis en Grece vers le milieu du IV e siecle avant I’ere vulgaire by the
Abbe Barthelemy, Stuart and R ev ett’s A ntiquities o f A thens and the
C om te de C hoiseul-G ouffier’s L e Voyage pittoresque de la Grece all dis
closed landscapes and monuments hitherto unknown to the general
public. T he great encyclopaedic descriptions o f the preceding period
were replaced by monograph studies. Scholarly travel was supported
in France and England by the Crown, and the Society o f Dilettanti
o f London gave financial support to expeditions. T he architects who
visited Greece — Stuart, and later Cockerell — were prolific builders
through w hom the new taste was imposed. The manner o f publica
tion changed; the overhead views o f monuments were supplemented
with sections and plans, and the accuracy o f the surveys improved, all
to public approval.
T h e taste for antiquities was not merely theoretical. Th e travellers
o f the eighteenth century, like the antiquaries before them, were col
lectors, but they displayed a new technical interest and a desire to
imitate. T h e voyage changed in social status and dimensions. Ambas
sadors began to fund collecting expeditions. Richard Worsley, British
260
4 - ON THE R E JE C T IO N OF T H E NATURAL HISTORY OF M A N
V ie w o f the site o f
Iliu m {left) and ruins
o f a tem ple near the
m ou n d o f T roy (below ):
drawings fro m Voyage
pittoresque de la Grece
by the C o m te de
C h oiseu l-G ou ffier,
published in 178 2 .
C h o ise u l-G o u ffie r’s
observations show
m ore o f an interest in
the picturesque than
in architecture.
ambassador to Venice; C hoiseul-G ouffier, French ambassador to

Constantinople; Lord Elgin, British ambassador to the same city; Sir
W illiam Hamilton in Naples - all had their ‘antiquary’, their illustra
tors, their cast-makers, and sometimes their permanent residents in
Athens, like the Frenchm an Fauvel for Choiseul and the Italian
Lusieri for Elgin. In London the Society o f Dilettanti, founded in
1733, was the heart and soul o f these enterprises and the m eeting-
place o f those English gentlemen who were the most determined
and numerous o f the travellers. This curiosity, coupled with the need
to finance the expeditions, went hand in hand with pillage. W h o
would secure the Parthenon sculptures, the French or the British?
Fauvel made a start, but Elgin beat him to it. In this game o f fame
THE D I SC O V ER Y OF T H E P A ST
and prestige everything was permissible, as a letter from Choiseul to

Fauvel demonstrates: ‘Take everything you can, lose no opportunity
to loot everything w hich is lootable in Athens and its surroundings
[...]. Spare neither the dead nor the living .’48
W inckelm ann’s astonishing and unsurpassable success, before his
tragic and premature death in Trieste in 1768, can only be explained
in terms o f the establishment o f the taste for, and knowledge of,
G raeco-R om an antiquities at the heart o f cultural attitudes in the
European world. The ground had been prepared during the classical
age, but the craze for monuments and objects was a cultural trait o f
T h e Fren ch consul
Fauvel in his house
at th e fo o t o f the
A cropolis. Lithograph
by Louis D u p re, 1825.
the Enlightenment. W inckelm ann offered an aesthetic to a Europe in

which Greek art had been only a matter o f taste. In justifying it he
destroyed the antiquarian model which made history subservient to
objects. His T he History o f A ncient A rt among the G reeks is not a series
o f annotated works, but an ordered account w hich places those
works in an historical context in an inimitable style. Generations o f
antiquaries had sought only to explain the objects, but Winckelm ann
set out to explain a culture by its objects. This was an impressive
change o f perspective w hich addressed the scholar as well as the
artist. Better still, he did not reserve his disclosure o f the attractions
o f the sublime for the ears o f the German princes, Dutch scholars or
Italian cardinals. He addressed all men o f the Enlightenment, telling
them that if Greek art had reached such a degree o f perfection, it was
because that art had developed within one o f the freest societies that
man had ever known. Beauty was the sister o f liberty:
T he independence o f Greece is to be regarded as the most prom inent o f the
262
4 — ON THE R EJE C T IO N OF T H E NATURAL HISTORY OF MAN
causes, originating in its constitution and governm ent, o f its superiority in art
[ ...] . T he freedom which g ave birth to great events, political changes, and je a l
ousy among the G reeks, planted, as it were in the very production o f these
effects, the germ o f noble and elevated sentiments. A s the sight o f the bound
less surface o f the sea, and the dashing o f its proud waves upon the rocky
shore, expands our views and carries the soul away fro m , and above, inferior
objects, so it was impossible to think ignobly in the presence o f deeds so great
and men so distinguished .49
There was som ething o f Rousseau in this man (we have this
observation on Diderot’s authority). To his literary gifts W inckelm ann
could add those o f connoisseur, and his boundless
curiosity gave his contemporaries the impression
that with each o f his books a new continent o f the
past was to be discovered. T h e essayist was also a
scholar-traveller, on the trail o f all the archaeologi
cal novelties o f his time, from R o m e to Hercula
neum to Paestum. It was an era o f excavation as
well as exploration, as is shown by the discovery o f w . w * . Vj.
:V *r,
Herculaneum and Pompeii and the ‘state’ excava
tions organised by the Duke o f Parma atVeleia. In sm m sm
the eyes o f archaeologists, however, his work
became the victim o f its own success; his history o f
Greek art depended mainly upon R om an copies,
(original Greek statues were to emerge during the
nineteenth century with the development o f exca
vation in G reece). This theoretician o f im itation
had built his aesthetic and typological opinion
upon copies. His abbreviated life and his fear o f
reality had prevented him from braving the voyage to Greece, his Sultan’s ed ict w ritten
in Turkish and G reek.
life-long desire. It was to be one o f his successors at the head o f the
T h is d o cu m en t is the
Vatican museums, Ennio Q uirino V isconti, who declared to the official authorisation
fo r the ex p o rt o f the
scholarly world that the marbles taken from the Acropolis by Lord
Venus de M ilo (1 8 2 1 ).
Elgin were indeed authentic Attic sculptures o f the fifth century bc.
W inckelm ann, however, had achieved something o f which no anti

quary had ever dreamed. H e had imposed a new vision o f Greece
upon contem porary society, and an aesthetic w hich for decades
would be held as the key to understanding ancient art. The concept
o f the sublime, and o f liberty — these two poles o f W inckelm ann’s
thinking —would not, however, carry the same longevity. For some —
Herder, Lessing, Humboldt and, o f course, Goethe — the mystery o f
263
v;'v!
gillWMi
.1«tC« HOTO
VIi-1■-,t. " w y * 1
77*e /Ipoêe o f G reece, K arl F ried rich Schinkel,

1 8 2 5 , copy attributed to W ilh elm A h lbo rn ,
1 8 3 6 . T h is painting could b e seen as a visual
expression o f W in k elm an n s and G o e th e ’s
th eo ries o n G reek art.
264
4 - ON THE REJEC TIO N OF T H E N A T U R A L H I S T O R Y OF MAN
265
V iew o f the
E rech th eu m in
A thens, from Les
mines des plus beaux
consideres da cote de
I'histoire et du cote
de I'architecture, by
D avid le R o y (1 7 5 8 ).
D espite his w o rk s
avowed aim , the
French architect's
drawings were still
in fluen ced by the
poetry of the ruins.
Greek art formed the heart o f his legacy; for others, principally the
revolutionaries, the message o f the liberty o f the ancients was born
anew in the person o f W inckelmann. David’s paintings and the archi
tectural projects ofThom as Jefferson —future President o f the United
States, his country’s ambassador to Paris during the Revolution, and
spare-time archaeologist —were part o f the W inckelm ann heritage.
THE H I S T O R Y OF A RT AND OF N A T U R E
C o n t r a d i c t i o n s in the a r c h a e o l o g y o f
the A g e o f E n l i g h t e n m e n t
Through the enthusiasm and curiosity o f the savants, the science o f

the antiquaries emerged as a com pletely distinct discipline. At the
end o f the eighteenth century the collections not only flourished but
became (or were becoming) museums open to the public. Landscape
studies made enormous progress, and the more observant spirits from
this period onwards knew how to pick out those variations in the
soil which foretold modern stratigraphic techniques. Thanks to the
efforts o f the numismatists and epigraphers, the antiquaries had at
their disposal the means o f dating and interpretation necessary to the
understanding o f any literate society. In addition, the insights o f such
men as Aubrey, Caylus and W inckelmann showed typology to be the
cardinal method o f seriating and dating objects. Paradoxically, how
ever, one is treated to the spectacle o f the best o f antiquaries — like
Maffei and Caylus — taking works o f the Renaissance for ancient
266
sculptures, and to M ontfaucon’s father referring to the Three Age

system but not discussing it. Caylus, who had guessed the great antiq
uity o f the Breton megaliths, did not have recourse to Buffon’s theo
ries to support his words, and La Sauvagere sought the authority o f
Voltaire to deny the existence o f fossil shells.
The ‘ceraunites’ or ‘thunderbolts’ are a good indication o f the diffi
culties encountered by the archaeologists o f the Enlightenm ent
when they tried to reconcile an experimental approach with anti
quarian tradition. As early as the sixteenth century M ichele M ercati
had shown that the so-called ‘thunderbolts’ were in fact chipped
stones used as tools by the ancient populations o f Europe. However,
his book was not published until 17 1 9 ,5,1 and the subject still seemed
difficult enough in 1723 for Antoine de Jussieu to address it in a
paper to the Academie des Sciences, and in 1734 the antiquary N ico
las M ahudel 51 did the same at the
Academie des Inscriptions. W hile the m*. jswAjtn*n»y*rtw c'.ytm,r*n ja h m ai W*=4»%*jw»’’ .J
two authors agreed w ith M ercati’s

opinion, their arguments were more
developed; Jussieu insisted upon
ethnographic comparisons and on the
use o f similar stones by the ‘savages’ o f
Canada and the Caribbean, conclud
ing that:
v / '' "v lobtat&iil"?*’,™ ifeii'M&f'ifn/U anjulo Irmjita., aiierr p n wtyiaUrn -frti'.
T h e p opu lation s o f France and G er ,, S ijb r rgilta nmU ltc Cuttaf jxlire.ut H . D C .^fC i
many and o f other northern countries, but •• Xlvi
for the discovery o f iron, are quite sim ilar to all the savages o f today, and Sto n e w eapons from
Kilian Stobaeus s bo ok
had no less need than them, before the use of iron, to cut w ood, strip bark,
on the history o f
cleave branches and k ill u’ild animals, to hunt for their fo od and to defend 'cerau n ites' (1 7 3 8 ).
In Scandinavia, an
themselves against their enemies. T hey could hardly have done these things
interest in local
w ithout such tools, which u nlike iron, being not subject to rust, are found antiquities led
scholars to illustrate
today in their entirety in the earth, almost with their first p o lis h .52
the 'thunderbolts'
Jussieu’s conclusion clearly articulates the rule o f actualism in faithfully. Stobaeus
archaeology: any ancient object made in the same material and follow regarded them as
tools and weapons
ing the same process as an object made by a modern-day population predating the use
must have had a roughly equivalent function. T h e Jesuit Father Lafitau o f iron.
used the same rationale in Mceurs des sauvages americains comparees aux
moeurs des premiers temps (1724), so giving his mark o f approval to the
comparative ethnology o f ancient and modern peoples. In addition,
the commentary o f the Permanent Secretary o f the Academie des Sci
ences, following Jussieu’s paper reinforced his opinion:
267
I f the other stones fig u red are m onum ents to the great physical revolu
tions, then these are the m onum ents to a great revolution which one might
call moral, an d the com parison o f the N ew World with the A ncient serves
to prove both revolutions equally.
In other words, the invention o f flint tools was to the history o f
man what the appearance o f certain fossils was to the
history o f the natural world; the two kinds o f history
shared the same kind o f induction. A dangerous opin
ion, w hich established in a scientific con text what
Lapeyrere had suggested in a theological one.
Mahudel, in his paper to the Academie des Inscrip
tions, developed the technical arguments: the ‘thunder
bolts’ were functionally similar to bronze and iron tools.
O ne could therefore infer that these were objects which
shared the same purpose, before the discovery o f ‘brass
and iron’. Mahudel stuck to this explanation, effectively
a typological one, without ever developing the actualist
argument.
W hy? U ndoubtedly because it was thus easier for
him to draw an acceptable conclusion: man used stone
before metal, but there is nothing here which contradicts
biblical tradition. W hile Jussieu developed an approach
based on ethnographic parallels w hich supposed an
Plate from equivalence o f human and natural history, Mahudel followed the
M o n fa u co n s
antiquarian m ethod w hich gave precedence to sources and typo
V Antiquite expliquee,
show ing protoh istoric logical comparison, in w hich case there was no need to resort to
stone axes and a
evidence borrowed from natural history.
M ero v ing ian bu ckle
plate w h ich was T h e discovery in 1685 in Normandy o f the megalithic tomb o f
th ou g h t to be a ‘gallic Cocherel may help shed light upon the difficulties encountered by
hair o rn a m en t’.
the antiquaries o f the eighteenth century when they tried to inter
pret monuments outside the classical tradition. This tomb, carefully
described by the gentleman excavator, consisted o f a burial chamber
in which about twenty bodies were buried, accompanied by objects
w hich were out o f the ordinary: stone axes, worked bone, arrow
heads, ‘It seems that the barbarians there used neither iron nor
copper, nor any other m etal .’53 In addition to this first grave there
was a crem ation burial, ‘in ground eight pouces [inches] higher’.
M ontfaucon went for an ethnic interpretation o f the different modes
o f burial, ‘There can be no doubt that this was the tom b o f two
nations o f the remotest antiquity .’54 However, he was careful to avoid
268
any chronological interpretation, and contented him self with attach

ing to his description a letter from an antiquary o f Basle, Jacques
Christophe Iselin, which added details on burials o f the same type
found in Germany and the Nordic countries. In his letter Iselin, who
was a com petent antiquary and a friend o f Schoepflin, suggested
simply that tombs o f this type should be classified
according to the tools and weapons found during
excavation, follow ing a stone—copper—iron suc
cession. This was a fundamental paradigm inher
ited from Greek and Latin authors, but one
which no antiquary had used explicitly to classify
archaeological evidence .55 M ontfaucon added no
com m entary to Iselin’s letter; to him it was
merely a useful source o f inform ation on ‘north
ern antiquities’, which he employed in his sup
plem ent to draw attention to the megaliths o f
Brittany and the Vendee, and to establish their
relationship with identical m onuments in the
British Isles, such as Stonehenge .56 In an unpub
lished paper, Sur les armes des anciens G aulois et des
nations voisines, presented at the Academie des
Inscriptions in 1734, M ontfaucon once again
returned to the idea o f a Stone Age, but he did
not modify his interpretation o f Cocherel. O thers, like his colleague, T h e C o ch e re l tom b,
the Benedictine Jacques Martin, did state that the megalithic tomb o f &om Religions celtes, by
Jacq u es M artin (1 7 2 7 ).
C ocherel was a double tomb, Gallic and Germ anic, dating to the
Migration period; one o f the strong points in his argument was pre
cisely that ‘stone axes are therefore not at all the sign o f great antiq
uity .’57 It was for Caylus to give an overview on the question o f
megaliths, in the sixth volume o f his Recueil, in the chapter devoted
to Gallic antiquities. Caylus was better inform ed than his predeces
sors because he could refer to the works o f local antiquaries, espe
cially those o f La Sauvagere and President de R o b ie n . H e was,
however, quick to distance him self from the views o f his predecessors
and informants who saw in the Carnac alignments Gallic structures, a
R om an camp or the consequences o f the ‘great invasions’ (or,
according to the engineer Deslandes, a natural phenomenon):
Firstly the great num ber o f these stones, w hich are in no way the work
o f a f e w years, proves our p ro fou n d ignorance o f the an cient ways o f
G a u l; f o r I am f a r fro m attributing these m onum ents to the ancient Gauls.
269
I follow in this matter the opinion o f M . dc L a Sauvagere;

the m onum ents them selves attest that the G au ls can have
no p art in it, for it is a fa c t that being masters o f the in te
rior o f the country they w ould have erected som e o f these
stones in several parts o f the continent, and they have
only been found in som e provinces situated on the coast,
or at least not far away. Secondly, these stones suggest a
w ell established cult, and we kn ow the customs and reli
gion o f the G auls well enough not to attribute to them
this kin d o f superstition [■■■f
Thirdly, the arrangem ent o f these rocks proves the
desire o f this nation (w hatever it m ight have been) to
pass into posterity. In fact, these monuments, very d iffi
cult to displace, and useless in every sense — for it w ould
always be easier to take others lik e them from the earth
than to throw down those which were set. up, and which
besides bore no ornam ent which might tempt the malice
Fossil am m onites, o f men to destroy them — these monuments, I say, put m e in m ind to ask
a plate from a
w hether the most en lighten ed race could em ploy better or more certain
co m p en d iu m o f the
w onders o t nature by m eans to leave testimony to their existence /.../.
G .W . K n o rr and Fourthly, the num ber o f stones placed on the coast o f B rittany bears
J.E .W a lc h (1 755).
witness to the length o f the sojourn m ade in this p art o f G au l by peoples
w hose way o f thinking was the sam e, at least in this respect; but it is sim
pler, and more in keep in g with appearances, to agree that this kin d o f
m onum ent is the w ork o f the sam e people. T hese reflections increase the
singularity o f the absolute silence which tradition itself has m aintained on
such repetitive usage; one can infer an antiquity even more rem ote than
the time o f the R om ans, o f which all trace is lost.5*
Caylus could scarcely go further, except by inventing, half a cen
tury before the actuality, the idea o f prehistory. Like Jussieu, he hap
pened upon the idea o f a long human history by a simple exercise o f
comparison and deduction - a history which was itself part o f the
history o f nature. Buffon, in Les Epoques de la nature,59 had expressed
beautifully that he did not have the solution to the question o f conti
nuity between human and natural history:
A s in hum an history we consult books, and research am ong the coins
an d medals, an d decipher ancient inscriptions to determ ine the timing o f
changes and the dates o f events in intellectual history; in the sam e way in
natural history we must dig into the archives o f the earth, and p lu ck out
the ancient m aterials fr o m the entrails o f the earth, p ick up the debris, and
270
4 - ON T H E REJECTION OF T H E NATURAE HISTORY OF M A N
assem ble in one body o f evidence all the indications o f p h y sical change
which m ay allow us to go back to the different ages o f nature. It is the
only w ay o f fix in g som e poin ts in the im m ensity o f that space, an d o f
placing a certain num ber o f m ilestones upon the eternal road o f tim e.M)
W hen, as Jussieu wrote, the material facts are also stages in human
development, when man invents stone tools, then there is no longer
any difference between human history and natural history. W ith the
prudence o f someone who knew just what weight the interdicts o f D iscov ery o f the giant
reptile in M aastricht
the theologians carried, Buffon suggested throughout his text that
in 176 6 , drawn by
others might undertake in the field o f human history what he had Faujas de S ain t-F on d
tried to do for the history o f the earth and o f animal species. No m 179 9 . In 1 7 9 5 , this
French naturalist tried
doubt his deep convictions were shared by Caylus, who wished to in vain to acquire the
turn the antiquary into a physicist in the same way that Buffon sug anim al from
M aastricht tor six
gested that the naturalist was an antiquary. Boulanger demonstrated hundred bottles o f
the originality o f his own thinking in taking up Lapeyrere’s reason w in e. It was o n e o f
th e greatest
ing on the antiquity and diversity o f men in the w'orld: palaeontological
This diversity o f anecdotes [about the F lo o d j appears to hint that there discoveries o f the
eig h teen th century.
were in various countries of the world men who survived these diverse acci
dents, w hich goes strongly against the Je w is h tradition ad op ted by the
C hristians, w ho w ou ld have all the in habitan ts o f the p resen t world
descended fro m the survivors o f the deluge, o f which M oses sp o k e.<A
All the same, i f one is to believe a recent work by the German
sociologist W olf Lepenies ,62 one might think that W inckelmann, so
much a child o f the Enlightenm ent, would not have repudiated this
2 71
In 1 7 9 9 Jo h n M asten
fou n d som e en orm ous
fossil anim al bones in
peat bo g . Charles
W ilso n Peale, a rich
co lle cto r o f natural
cu riosities, installed a
w h eel-d riv en drainage
system o n th e site and
discovered a
m astod on. T h e site
thus becam e a
g ath erin g -p lace for
th e cu riou s o f the
en tire east coast o f
th e U n ite d States.
opinion — W inckelm ann, w ho strove to establish a science o f art

founded upon a naturalist and evolutionist model, who, like Buffon,
saw in style one o f the mainstays o f thought, and who was, according
to Goethe, the first art historian to propose a hypothesis capable o f
being faked ... T he drama o f individualists like Buffon, W inckelm ann
and Caylus lay in their intuition o f the revolution in human and nat
ural history which was to take place during the nineteenth century,
without access to the means o f its execution: perhaps that is why we
are still so receptive to their endeavours today.
212
4 - ON THE REJECTION OF T H E N A T U R A L HISTORY OF M A N
1 Pintard 1983, pp. 3 5 8 - 9 . 3 5 Ib id .,V II—V III.

2 Lapeyrere 1 6 56, 'I'he Proeme. 36 Ib id .,V III.
3 St A ugustine, T h e C ity of C o d , X V I I I , 40. 3 7 R o ch eb la v e 1 889, p. 2 7 4 .
4 Ibid., X II , 10. 38 L etter from H orace W alpole o f 14 Ju n e
5 K azari, I, pp. 6 0 —1, cited by Popkin 1 9 87, 1740, from Private Correspondence o f Horace
pp. 2 7 - 8 . IValpole, L o n d o n , 18 2 0 , volum e I, p. 67.
6 Ibid., I, p. 67. 3 9 Z evi 1 9 8 7 , p. 15.
7 M aim om des 1970, III, X X I X , p. 22 2 . 4 0 S ee the recen t reassessment o f this
8 H o h en h eim 1929, p. 186. character by A n to in e Schnappcr,
9 Popkin 1 9 87, p. 35. in Schnapper 1 9 8 8 , p. 2 9 1 ff.
10 B ru n o 1 8 7 9 ,1, 2, p. 28 2 . 41 Sch n appcr 1 9 8 8 ,p. 2 9 4 .
11 Pintard 1 9 83, p. 2 0 . 4 2 C ite d in Schnapper 1 988, p. 2 9 5 .
12 Ibid., p. 3 5 9 . 4 3 Pin on 1 991, p. 42.
13 Lapeyrere 1732, p. 403. 4 4 Ibid., p. 85.
14 Ib id ., p. 42 6 . 4 5 La Sauvagere 1 758.
15 W o rm 1 7 5 1 ,‘M o n sieu r Peyrere, advisor to 4 6 G rig non 177 4 , pp. 9 6 - 8 .
M . th e ambassador o t Fran ce at 4 7 L etter to Berendis, in H oltzhauer 1969,
C h ristian o p o l', pp. 9 4 5 —6. p. 8 6 , letter 17.
16 H oo k e 1 7 0 5 , pp. 4 0 8 and 41 2 . 4 8 L etter from C h o is e u l-G o u ftle r to Fauvel,
17 Ibid., p. 33 5 . cited in Legrand 1 897, p. 57.
18 Several editions o f this text exist in diverse 4 9 W in ck elm an n 1 8 8 0 , volum e I, pp. 2 8 9
form s, o f m ore o r less equal length. T his and 2 9 3 .
English ed ition is from 17 4 8 . 5 0 M ercati 1 7 1 9 (see pp. 1 5 1 —2).
19 Hazard 1961, p. 24. 51 H am y 190 6 .
2 0 M arana 1 7 48, Preface, p. xix. 5 2 Jussieu, in H am v 1 9 0 6 , p. 2 4 8 . In 1 728,
21 S e c above, pp. 1 3 6 —7. in his Fossiles of ail K inds D igested into
2 2 M arana 1 7 4 8 , v o l.V III, L etter X I I : ‘to the a M ethod, J . W oodward reached the same
venerable M u fti’, p. 25 3 . co n clu sion ; part two, letter 3 9 —4 0 .
2 3 M en ag e 1 6 9 4 , II, p. 69. 5 3 M o n tfa u co n 1 7 1 9 ,V,2.
2 4 S e c p. 128. 5 4 Ibid.
25 G ronovius 1 6 9 4 —1703, 13 volumes and 55 T h e precedence o f bronze over iron is,
Thesaurus antiqiiitatnin romanarum, by however, a ‘to p ic’ o f G erm an
J . G. G raevm s, 1694—9, 12 volum es. archaeologists of the end of the
2 6 Bibliographical n o te by M o n tfau con on seventeenth cen tury: J.D . M a jo r and Ja co b
his own w orks, in Broglie 1 8 9 1 , p. 3 2 1 . M ellen , and indeed J .G . Eccard, clearly
27 M o n tfau con 17 1 9 , Supplem ent, allude to it.
In trod u ctio n , volum e I. 56 M o n tfau con 1 7 1 9 , Supp lem en t V,
2 8 Ibid., section 111. B o o k V II, ch apter 3, p. 145ff.
2 9 Ibid., volum e I. 57 M artin 1 727, p. 3 1 7 .
3 0 See pp. 3 6 - 7 . 58 Caylus 1752, volum e V I, pp. 3 8 6 - 7 .
31 Nisard 1 8 7 8 ,1, p. 4. 59 B u ffo n 1776.
3 2 Ibid., p. 9. 6 0 Ibid., p. 3.
3 3 Ibid., X X X V I I I . 61 Boulan ger 1 7 5 6 ,V I, I, p. 2 9 6 .
3 4 Caylus 1 7 5 2 , Forew ord, I—II. 62 Lepem es 1986.
273
M egalithic Tomb, w atercolou r by W ilh elm T isch b ein the younger, 1 8 2 0 . A talented painter,
Jo h a n n H ein rich W ilh elm T isc h b e in (1 7 5 1 - 1 8 2 9 ) was a friend o f G o e th e. Like the latter
h e was interested in G ra e c o -R o m a n antiquities and drew th e G reek vases in the co llectio n
o f Sir W illiam H am ilton . H e devoted several paintings to m an ’s an cien t history, and was
passionately interested in th e survey and excavation o f tum uli (see p. 2 9 1 ).
274
CHAPTER
T H E
I N V E N T I O N OF
A R C H A E O L O G Y
Here bring the last gifts! - loud and shrill

Wail, death-dirge for the brave!
W h a t pleased him most in life may still
Give pleasure in the grave.
We lay the axe beneath his head
H e swung, when strength was strong -
T h e bear on which his banquets fed —
T h e way from earth is long!
And here, new -sharpen’d, place the knife
T hat sever’d from the clay,
From which the axe had spoil’d the life,
T h e co n q u e r’d scalp away!
T h e paints that deck the Dead, bestow —
Yes, place them in his hand -
T hat red the Kingly Shade may glow
Amidst the Spirit-Tand!
F-R.OM JO H AN N r i l l ' l\ IO IJH FR IE D R IC H VON SCHILLER., THE /%:')/ I Y D L A rH -D IR C E , 1797.
JL
A \-rchaiologia, antiquitates, antiq
uities: for over two thousand years these were the terms used to
describe the study o f the material past in the West, and the men who
devoted themselves to this study were called ‘antiquaries’. In the first
h alf o f the nineteenth century a new term — archaeology — was
increasingly used, and this shift in vocabulary corresponded to a mod
ification o f the role and purpose o f knowledge o f the past. The schol
ars who explicitly asserted their archaeological credentials aimed to
275
View of the Valley of the

Mississippi, [ohn Egan,
1 8 5 0 .T h e tumuli o f
the N ative A m erican
civilisations o f the
southern U nited
States have te rm ed
one o f the m ost
debated subjects in
A m erican archaeology
since Jefferso n . T h e
ill o nu 111 e n t a1 g r an de u r
o f th e Mississippi
Valley is represented
in a series ot pictures
created in 1850 by-
Jo h n Egan, a painter create a new branch o f knowledge which was not subservient to
from Philadelphia, philology but embraced the entire material part o f human history. In
based on studies by
M o n to rv ille W.
order to achieve this they undertook the construction o f a specific
D ick eso n, exp lorer tool for the classification o f objects: typology. But typology alone
and excavator o f the
Mississippi burial
could not provide a full framework for the reconstruction o f the past.
m ounds. D ickeson It was necessary to assign groups o f objects and monuments to spe
used these images
cific periods, and then to observe the soil, distinguish the layers and
painted on muslin to
illustrate his lectures. recognise the human activities o f ancient times. To this end archaeolo
T h e excavation is
gists salvaged the idea o f stratigraphy, the foundations for which had
depicted realistically;
particularly notable is been laid by geologists. Buffon had urged naturalists to behave like
the ex cellen t rendition antiquaries; archaeologists themselves set out to approach the earth in
of the successive strata.
Jeffe rso n ’s in fluen ce is
the same way as the geologists. They thus discovered what Buffon had
evident here. feared: that natural history and human history were one.
276
5 - THE INVENTION OP A R C H A E O L O G Y
THE PRESUMPTI ON OF
M A N ’ S GREAT ANT I QUI TY
A N T I Q U A R I E S B E T W E E N
THE FOG AND THE FL O O D
In the Humanist tradition — that o f such men as Spon, Maffei or

M ontfaucon — the functional analysis o f objects and monuments
played only a secondary role. Educated by texts, and reared on classi
cal culture, the Humanist antiquaries did not seek to interpret the
function o f remains p er se. After all, it was sufficient to refer to tradi
tion to know how baths, an amphitheatre or a triumphal arch were
used, and Vitruvius was always there to offer helpful information.
As we have seen, it was different for the regional antiquaries, from
W orm to Aubrey. Faced with the remains o f the High Middle Ages
or o f prehistory, they had to confront the rigours o f history without
text. It was only with the greatest difficulty that M ontfaucon himself
could publish the megalithic burial at Cocherel, excavated in 1685
by a N orm an gentleman o f the same name .1 And if, in a letter pub
lished as an appendix to his account, he made room for the observa
tions o f Jacques Christophe Iselin on the three-age sequence — stone,
copper, iron — this was referred to only in passing, as if this revolu
tionary theory seemed to him a secondary matter. In short, the men
o f the Enlightenm ent were not ready to admit the consequences o f
what Caylus had so bravely suggested: the idea o f a cultural history
based on technological development. In itself the typological
approach could not reveal its full virtues without being linked to the
stratigraphic or technological study o f objects. It was Legrand
d’Aussy who, in a report to the Institut National in the year VII
(1799), proposed not only the clearing o f monuments, but their
excavation:
T h e tom bs must be open ed because it is not ju st m ineralogists w ho
stand to g ain fro m opening up and digging up the earth F or archae
ology and history too, there will often be fou n d m atter f o r observation and
antiquities to gather.2
Legrand d’Aussy, as Annette Laming-Emperaire observed, was not
just an explorer o f the earth: he was undoubtedly one o f the first in
the eighteenth century to consider the problems o f burials in an his
torical and geographical context. In an attempt to establish a
277
T h e S keleton C ave,
Caspar D avid
F rie d rich , 1803.
T h is pictu re shows
th e artist’s interest in
arch aeological
landscapes. A friend
o f G o e th e, Caspar
D avid F ried rich
( 1 7 7 4 - 1 8 4 0 ) was
th e em b od im en t
o f G erm an
R o m a n ticism .
chronology, he picked up the forgotten thread o f O le W orm ’s

remarks on the means o f distinguishing between funerary traditions.
T h e Danish scholar had drawn on the difference between megaliths
and tumuli in laying the foundations o f a chronology o f Scandina
vian burials. Legrand d’Aussy continued his work in order to make a
distinction between the Age o f Fire, o f which he believed Cocherel
to be the prototype, and the Age o f Mounds:
I have called the fir s t p eriod the prim itive A g e o f Fire, and I will call
the second the A ge o f M ounds. B u t since there are m ounds which only
contain burnt bodies [ . . . ] and others w hich only have com plete bodies,
such as those which I sh all cite in a m om ent, I believe that we can fu rth er
divide the m ounds into two p eriod s: mounds with burnt bodies, the second
age o f burial fa s h io n ; m ounds with unburnt bodies, the third.3
T h e effort was not towards pure typology. To classify the tombs
was also to attempt to construct a chronology. In this Legrand
d’Aussy was clearly less at ease than his predecessors in Scandinavia
or Germany, because he was less familiar with the terrain. But he was
as aware as Caylus o f the singularity o f megaliths. Even i f he did not,
as the latter had, affirm that they could not be ascribed to the Gauls,
he called them ‘tombs o f the first period o f the nation’, which dated
back an ‘immeasurable span o f years’. Here was a modest observation
which allowed us a giant step. T h e megaliths could no longer be con
sidered as monuments which might be confused with those o f the
Gauls a few centuries before Caesar: Legrand d’Aussy recognised in
278
5 - THE INVEN TION OF A R C H A E O L O G Y
them an antiquity beyond the norms o f traditional history. H e had

had an intuition o f the great span o f history but nevertheless had not
got as far as deducing the existence o f a prehistoric past because his
approach remained purely theoretical. He had certainly understood
the advantage the antiquary could gain from observation o f the
earth, but he went no further than considerations w hich were as
ambitious as they were routine. Under the aegis o f the Ministry o f
Public Education he proposed a project aimed at keeping watch over
the landscape to prevent the destruction o f burials, and organising
their excavation and study. H e did not view the landscape with the
eyes o f a treasure hunter; he envisaged having detailed plans made o f
the monuments before beginning work on their excavation. He went
as far as to suggest keeping a detailed record o f finds and measure
ments as in the manner o f the samples entrusted to naturalists and
anatomists. H e was as keen to display antiquities as he was anxious to
protect them, and he proposed nothing less than the setting up o f an
archaeological section within Alexandre Lenoir’s Museum o f French
M onum ents: an avant-garde project for a typological museum in
which each type o f m onument would be represented in strict order
by a full-scale model.
Well-versed in the writings o f his leading antiquarian predecessors
(and especially those o f Caylus), Legrand d’Aussy opened the way for
a m odern practice o f the antiquarian profession. For the first time
the fragility o f archaeological monuments became the focus o f atten
tion, and for the first time means o f protection and investigation
formed the object o f a discussion on method which was no longer
limited to portable objects or the monuments in G raeco-R om an or
Eastern traditions. Antiquarian science took a global view o f the
traces o f human history. Legrand d’Aussy was also not afraid (and
here again he showed him self to be a disciple o f Caylus) to emphasise
a national duty to protect and study monuments. Underlining the
special character o f the Breton megaliths, he even proposed giving
them Breton names. As the last antiquary o f the eighteenth century,
Legrand d’Aussy asserted that observation o f the soil was a deeply
historical discipline; as the first archaeologist o f the nineteenth, he
developed a programme for the disciplined professionalisation o f
archaeological practice.
In the France o f N apoleon and the R estoration the forward-
looking ideas o f Legrand d’Aussy had to bide their time. Central
government seemed little interested in giving France an antiquities
219
service like those o f Sweden, Denm ark and even some German
states, and the tradition o f the aristocrat antiquary had stopped with
Caylus. It was to reappear, to be sure, with such men as the Due de
Luynes; but he, like too many other French archaeologists o f the
period, was attracted by the Mediterranean world, and his contribu
tion to the study o f the antiquities o f Gaul was limited. Legrand
d’Aussy did not lack contem poraries and successors: August Louis
M illin and his R ecu eil des m onum ents p ou r servir a I’histoire gen erale
et particuliere de la France (C o m p ila tio n o f M on u m en ts U seful fo r the
G en e ra l an d P articu lar H isto ry o f F ran ce; 1790); Alexandre de
Laborde and his M onu m en ts de la France classes
chron olog iqu em en t (M o n u m en ts o f F ran ce L is te d
C hron ologically; 1816—26); Grivaud de L aV in celle
and his R ecu eil des m onum ents an tiques ( C o m p ila
tion o f A n c ien t M o n u m en ts; 1817) — contrasted
with the works o f those obsessed by the Celts,
which dominated the output o f French antiquaries
at this tim e .4 But their work was not that o f men
engaged in the everyday surveillance o f the land, or
in direct contact with the objects and monuments
which emerged from the earth through building or
other works.
France in the first half o f the nineteenth century
lacked observers o f the earth; or rather, since the
‘classic’ antiquaries were mainly Parisians, cut o ff
from the realities o f the land, they did not play the
role later to be undertaken by such newcomers as
Francois Jouannet, Casimir Picard and Jacques
Plate from R ecueil des Boucher de Perthes. Th e only antiquary o f note to alter this attitude
monuments antiques
was to be a N orm an, Arcisse de Caumont, the embodiment o f a type
(1 8 1 7 ) by G rivaud
de L a V in celle o f antiquary who had ‘studied botany and geology before archaeol
(1 7 6 2 - 1 8 1 9 ), a senate
ogy ’ .5 Moreover, this turning point had not escaped Jules M ichelet,
official. H e was o ne
o f Caylus s successors, who noticed that in Caen the history o f antiquity and natural history
and an early exp on en t
proceeded together:
o f th e study o f G allo -
R o m a n terra sigillata W hat struck m e in C a en was that the sam e m en , C aum on t, L a ir and
pottery.
Vaultier, were at the sam e time antiquaries and naturalists. M y travelling-
com panion constantly m ingled history with natural history. In fact, C aen
reunited, on the one han d, R om an and N orm an antiquities, on the other
the antediluvian antiquities, fossils, etc.6
Arcisse de Caum ont was undoubtedly one o f the most dedicated
280
$ - THF, I N V E N T I O N OF A R C H A E O L O G Y
Stratigraphic
representation by
Jam es D ouglas, from
his N en ia Britannica,
In th e tradition
established by
Stukeley, D ouglas
co m b in ed his
topographcial surveys
w ith a stratigraphic
vision o f the
landscape.
workers in French archaeology in the nineteenth century, as can be

seen in his Corns d ’antiquites m onum entales (N otes on M on u m en tal
A n tiqu ities), published in twelve volumes between 1830 and 1841.
But his curiosity was directed more towards the Middle Ages and the
urgent need to protect historic monuments than towards the more
ancient periods. His vigorous advocation o f the need to protect the past
occupied much o f his energy, which he directed towards the creation
o f learned societies and the establishment o f a service for historic
monuments. Francois Guizot’s creation in 1834 o f the Com m ittee o f
Historic Works and the establishment o f a public administration o f
monuments were largely due to his influence, even if this dedicated
regionalist had often fallen out with the Parisian centralists, especially
Prosper M erim ee. Arcisse de Caum ont had an encyclopaedic knowl
edge o f art history and was a man open to all the scientific currents
o f his tim e, a trait w hich linked traditional antiquaries with the
archaeologists o f the new' generation. As Secretary o f the Linnaean
Society o f Calvados, he stood for those antiquaries who wished to
cross the bridge separating history from natural history, perhaps
because, like Boucher de Perthes, he owed his training to the Abbe
de La R u e —an emigrant priest who had brought back from England
a confirm ed taste for universal history.
D u rin g the first decades o f the nineteenth century, in contrast
to Germany and Great B ritain, the soil o f France remained little
excavated. In Britain interest in the observation o f the earth and in
excavation had not ceased since Stukeley. The R evd Brian Faussett
(1720—76) can be considered the record-holder among eighteenth-
281
century tomb-excavators. Driven by a kind o f sacred ardour, he suc

ceeded over a few years in ‘opening’ several hundred tumuli in K ent .7
H e is a prim e example o f a particular circle o f antiquaries who,
unable to indulge their passion through participation in the Grand
Tour, resorted to the exploration o f regional antiquities. Undertaken
using methods that every contem porary archaeologist would con
demn, Faussett s researches, which for a long time remained unpub
lished, gave his successors access to exceptional comparative material,
essentially o f the Saxon period. James Douglas (1 7 5 3 -1 8 1 9 ) was to
take up the torch. As an officer in the Royal Engineers, he began
with surveys o f fortifications in Kent, which led him
to the discovery o f A nglo-Saxon burials. Profiting
from his experience as a topographer and draughts
man, he made plans and sections o f these graves. He
soon decided to publish a synthesis devoted to the
funeral practices o f the A ncient Britons. Entitled
N enia Britannica, it appeared in 1793. In his work, just
as in that o f Faussett, the R om antic period o f British
archaeology was declared, that o f gentlemen enthused
by the opening o f graves, who increasingly supplanted
the antiquaries o f the Enlightenment.
Linked by their passionate enthusiasm, two men
embodied this new British archaeology:W illiam C un-
nington (1754—1810) and Sir Richard C olt Hoare
(1758—1838). Cunnington, a middle-class cloth m er-
chant, and C olt Hoare, a rich and romantic baronet,
together encapsulated the spirit o f England. In their
Series o f o bjects work they were accom panied by a good draughtsman, Philip
fou n d in a m edieval
Crocker, and a team o f w orkmen financed by C olt Hoare. W ith
tom b, drawn by
Ja m es D ouglas, from them , grave-opening becam e a collective exercise, a professional
his N en ia Britannica
enterprise w hich sought to establish a particular quality o f documen
( 1 7 9 3 ) .T h e s e finds
from A n g lo -S a x o n tation based on plans and sections. T h eir curiosity went beyond
graves are carefully funerary archaeology: their intention was to found a regional archae
drawn. T h e
p resentation ology. W ork on the ground was preceded by preliminary survey, and
emphasises the excavation was supervised by Cunnington and his team. In 1808
D ou glas s accuracy
and eye fo r detail. C olt Hoare embarked upon the publication o f a comprehensive
monograph, which was published between 1810 and 1822. W ith its
plans, exact surveys and regional dimension, T h e H istory o f A ncient
W iltshire was more than a simple catalogue o f excavations, it was a
considered study o f the archaeology o f a region. C olt Hoare liked to
282
5 - THE INVENTION OF A R C H A E O L O G Y
R ich a rd C o lt
H oare and W illiam
C u n n in g ton
supervising the
excavation o f a
barrow o n Salisbury
Plain. W aterco lou r by
Ph ilip C ro ck er, 1 8 0 7 .
think o f h im self as a true historian and, against C eltom aniacs o f

all kinds, declared ‘we speak from facts, not theories’. H e linked the
passion for archaeology with a desire for understanding. For him
excavations answered a precise question, ‘to ascertain to which o f the
successive inhabitants o f this island they [the prehistoric antiquities]
are to be ascribed’. After ten years o f work he could nevertheless
return to the evidence and admit ‘total ignorance as to the authors
o f these sepulchral memorials; we have evidence o f the very high
antiquity o f our W iltshire barrows, but none respecting the tribes to
whom they appertained, that can rest on solid foundations ’ .8 P roof
was necessary in order to escape chronological uncertainty. In the
absence o f a comparative analysis o f finds based on well-described
assemblages, the prize could not be won and C o lt H oare, like
M ontfaucon, could draw little by way o f positive conclusion from
a cautious suggestion offered by one o f his correspondents, the R evd
Thomas Leman:
I thin k we distinguish three great eras by the arms o f offence fo u n d in
our barrows. First those o f bone an d stone, certainly belonging to the
prim eval inhabitants in their savage state, and w hich may be safely attrib
uted to the Celts. Second those o f brass probably im ported into this island
fr o m the m ore p o lis h e d nations o f A frica in ex ch an g e f o r our tin, an d
which may be given to the Belgae. T hird those o f iron, introduced but a
little w hile before the invasion o f the R om an s.9
To make good use o f these original thoughts it was necessary to
develop a technique for the study o f associated artefacts. Cunnington
and C o lt H oare had little idea o f how to go about this. It was
also necessary to develop a procedure o f recording the finds, the
283
importance o f which the R evd Leman, him self a collector, stressed in

a letter to Cunnington:
You will excuse me I am sure when I take the liberty o f pointing out to
you the necessity o f im m ediately pasting a small piece o f paper on
every piece o f pottery, or coin that you may hereafter fin d , describing
with accuracy the very spot in which you f in d them. T h e p eo p le w ho suc
ceed us, may probably kn ow more about these things than we do, (or else 1
am confident that they w ill kn ow but little) but we ought to ... afford
them the Inform ation we can, with clearness .10
We can be sure that had C olt Hoare been able to take advantage o f
these com plem entary remarks, his work would have gained a
demonstrable force which it lacks. But, as a gentleman, he had the
courage o f his convictions, and his conclusion resounds as a verdict
on the era o f the antiquaries: ‘How grand! How wonderful! How
incomprehensible! ’ 11
Legrand d’Aussy had a synthesising mind which tried passionately
to impose order on the antiquarian hotchpotch, while C olt Hoare
and Cunnington had the powers o f observation and enthusiasm for the
land. But all three lacked the necessary means o f relating material to
the layers that made up the earth. For the study o f the past to escape
the vicious circle to which belief in a short chronology had confined
it, it was necessary as Rasmus Nyerup said, ‘to pierce the thick mist’ o f
time. Interest in stratigraphy was to lead, through its application to the
question o f human origins, to the discovery o f a time-span so long
that it would have to be termed ‘prehistoric’. Certain seventeenth-
century precursors, beginning with Lapeyrere, had created a belief in
a long history for mankind. After all, hadn’t Mercati, at the end o f the
sixteenth century, established that the ‘thunderbolts’ were tools, evi
dence o f ancient human industry? But where did the boundary sepa
rating the old from the very old begin? Pioneers o f research on fossils,
such as Nicolas Steno or Agostino Scilla, had demonstrated some time
before that the history o f the earth revealed a very long process o f
geological form ation. However, M ercati’s ideas were echoed by
William Dugdale in the middle o f the seventeenth century .12 Hadn’t
R o b ert Plot, in his N atural H istory o f S ta ffo rd sh ire (1686), affirmed
that he had found flints which dated to a most ancient period? The
brilliant theologian and geologist Joh n Woodward —had he not, a few
years later, held up to derision those who still believed in the natural
origin o f the ‘thunderbolts’? As to the theoreticians on the history o f
customs, like Goguet and de Pauw,13 they looked firmly to the men o f
284
the Enlightenm ent to trace an evolutionary picture o f the earliest

human history, where worked flints appeared prominently.
T he most enquiring antiquaries could not fail to direct their
attention to the discoveries w hich, following the example o f
Cocherel, attested to the existence o f a worked stone industry that
pointed to the great antiquity o f mankind. In 1715 a London book
seller, Joh n Bagford, described a flint point discovered in a London
gravel pit, ‘like a British weapon made o f a flint point in a shaft o f
good length ’ .14
However, the discovery o f an elephant (without doubt a mam
moth) in an adjacent deposit led the antiquary to attribute the flint
and the animal to the time o f the R om an con
quest. This clever solution allowed him to avoid the
bolder hypothesis o f certain o f his contemporaries,
who saw in the elephant skeleton proof o f the bib
lical Flood. In 1797 John Frere, High Sh eriff o f
Suffolk and later a member o f Parliament, discov
ered a series o f worked flints associated with animal
remains in a Suffolk brick-earth quarry and did not
hesitate to attribute them ‘to a very remote period
indeed; even beyond that o f the present world ’ . 15
N ot content with exact description o f the position
o f his discovery, Frere added to his commentary a
stratigraphic description o f the find and a section
o f the deposit.
Despite his evidence and a publication in the
journal o f the Society o f Antiquaries o f London,
Frere’s spectacular discovery did not, at the time, give rise to any par W orked flint, found
by Jo h n Frere in 1 7 9 7 .
ticular debate. After all, without directly questioning biblical chronol
Plate from th e jo u r n a l
ogy, great minds from the eighteenth century onwards had tried to A rchaeologia, 1 8 0 0 .
identify the men contem porary with the Flood. In 1708 a Swiss
doctor, Johann Jacob Scheuchzer, published a strange lampoon in
defence o f the fossil fish that had been victims o f the Flood instead
o f men, but which were considered by men to be stones. And among
these he produced a human skeleton as evidence o f the Flood,
which, a century later, Cuvier identified as a salamander. 16 M ore seri
ously, in 1774 a pastor o f Erlangen, Johann Friedrich Esper, explored
the Bayreuth caves in which he discovered a rich harvest o f animal
fossils mixed with worked flints and human remains .17 He was con
vinced that he had found in the earth a material trace o f the Flood.
285
Esper was aware o f the originality o f his discov

ery, but he had no available means o f dating, nor
any reference system which would allow him to
analyse the animal remains. As Donald Grayson
emphasises, the association o f fossil animals with
human remains posed no problem for him, since
he could not determine the age o f the fauna.
Although attestations o f the great antiquity o f
mankind were accumulating, the learned world
was not yet ready to admit to it. For the concept
o f continuity between human and natural his
tory to be established, antiquaries not only had
to increase their observations, they had to be
able to relate these to the history o f the earth
and a history o f species to which geologists and
palaeontologists were applying themselves at the
turn o f the century. Georges Cuvier in France
and W illiam Buckland in Great Britain were to
E n tran ce to the cave give geology the chronological means w hich it lacked. T h e work
at G ailenreuth and
o f each, in their supporting evidence, helped to prove that it was
m andible o f cave bear,
drawings from a w ork possible to consider human history as part o f the history o f the earth.
by J . F. Esper published
Adopting B u ffo n ’s image, C uvier saw geologists as the antiquaries
in 1 7 7 4 . Esper found
fossil anim al bones and o f nature:
hum an bones w hile
T h ey have dug in the ruins o f the g lobe to discover the monum ents o f
ex p lo rin g caves in
Bayreuth. H is drawings its physical history, as the antiquaries dig in the ruins o f cities to discover
are o f very high quality; the m onum ents o f the history o f arts and the customs o f the p eop les who
but the accom panying
anatom ical descriptions in habited th em . 18
are rather vague. As a zealous antiquary, he applied him self to the collection and
O pp osite: description o f a vast quantity o f animal fossils, so as to attribute them
Traces o f th e F lood , to well-defined strata and thus to lay the foundations o f a general
a plate from Physica
sacra by Jo h a n n Ja co b
stratigraphy o f extinct species. C uvier’s prodigious anatomical and
S ch eu ch zer (1 7 3 1 ). stratigraphic work offered palaeontologists chronological markers
S ch eu ch zers
co n trib u tion to the
which facilitated comparison between different sites and the geologi
analysis o f fossil cal profiles which distinguished them. C uvier thus established an
landscape features
attracted th e attention
indissoluble link between the types o f animal fossils and the strata
o f the geologists. In which contained them: each type could be assigned to a defined geo
1 7 0 8 S ch eu ch zer
logical form ation. Systematically, and with tenacity, Cuvier offered
th ou g h t h e had
discovered a fossil man naturalists the object o f their dreams: a clock which allowed them to
at A ltd orf, but in 1812
date the ages o f the universe. At the same time the English geologist
C u v ier proved this to
be a salamander. and theologian W illiam Buckland increased his studies o f the
286
28 7
5 - T H E I N V E N T I O N OF A R C H A E O L O G Y
chronology and stratigraphy o f caves

and his palaeontological, stratigraphic FSS
and chronological observations. Cuvier
and Buckland thus opened the way
for a rigorous study o f the association
between human remains and fossil
fauna; but paradoxically they were at
odds over the contem poraneity o f
man and the extinct animals:
Never, at least to our know ledge, have
hum an bones been fo u n d in the usual
strata o f the earth, as those belonging to quadrupeds have been encoun Stratigraphic sections
o f th e D o rset and
tered. H u m an rem ains which have been fo u n d lay either in loose soil, or
D ev o n coasts, from
in caves w here they might have been carried by carnivorous anim als, or R eliq u ae diluvianae
(1 8 2 3 ).
fin a lly in ossiferous crevasses am ong fissu red rock where they could have
been sw ept by landslides or other accidents. It is thus logical to think that
m an did not appear on earth until after the other classes o f m am m al, ju st
as is expressed in the B o o k o f M oses .19
It was to be less than twenty years before, on the basis o f the same
O pp osite, above:
principles as those o f the two great geologists, the antiquity o f man S ec tio n through the
was definitively accepted. Paviland cave, fou n d in
1 8 2 2 . D raw in g from
B u ck la n d s R eliqu ae
diluvianae ( 1 8 2 3 ) .T h is
THE D IF F IC U L T E M E R G E N C E very precise drawing
OF THE IDEA OF C O N T I N U I T Y shows that the hum an
skeleton (know n as the
T ype, technology, stra tigra p h y ‘R e d Lady’) was found
in sedim ents in w h ich
fossil anim al bones
C uvier’s unwillingness to accept the great antiquity o f man stemmed w ere num erous.
H ow ever, B u ck land
from his ‘catastrophism’, his firmly-established conviction that fossil regarded it as an
species had disappeared suddenly as a result o f a diluvial catastrophe. intrusive deposit and
rejected it as p r o o f o f
Nevertheless, in Paris, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck had suggested that the the existen ce o f a fossil
history o f animal species could be far better accom m odated by hum an being.
another hypothesis, that o f transformation. I f we could find in the O pp osite, below :

earth the remains o f animal species w hich were today extinct, it R h in o c e ro s skeleton
fou n d in a cave in a
might relate to the fact that these species were progressively trans m in e at Callow.
formed: the transformation o f living beings seemed more certain and D raw in g from
B u ck la n d s R eliqu ae
verifiable than catastrophism. For those who argued for the continu diluvianae (1 8 2 3 ).
ity o f man and nature, Lam arck’s ideas offered a fertile source o f T h e excavation
m ethods show n here
inspiration. Goethe s reaction to a debate which opposed Cuvier and
were qu ite m eticulous
Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire at the Academie des Sciences o f Paris fo r the period .
289
in July 1830 bears witness to this. O n 2 August o f that year Soret,

one o f the tutors o f the Prince o f Weimar, was asked by Goethe,
‘W h at do you think o f the great event? T h e volcano has begun
to erupt ...’ Soret replied, ‘It is a terrible story, but what can one
expect o f a government like this in a situation o f this kind if not
the exile o f the royal family?’ But Goethe was not interested in the
abdication of Charles X :
We d o n ’t understand each other, dear fr ie n d , I ’m not talkin g about
those p e o p le ; my subject is q u ite differen t. I ’m talk in g o f the quarrel
w hich is so im p ortan t f o r science w hich has ju s t
pu blicly op p osed C u vier an d G eoffroy S ain t-H ilaire
at the A cadem y.2{)
N o one could accuse Goethe o f a lack o f his
torical sensibility, but in the last days o f July 1830
the catastrophism—transformation battle seemed
to him much more decisive for history than the
misfortunes o f Charles X .21 Goethe, an admirer
o f W inckelm ann, embodied a rare curiosity
which allied a taste for ancient art with unravel
ling the secrets o f nature. His interest in geology
and his anatomical discoveries made him atten
tive to all the debates on evolution. As a field-
worker who had participated in numerous
excavations on the territory o f the Grand Duchy
o f Weim ar ,22 he was a strong supporter o f the
transformation theory because he believed, like
Portrait o f G eorges H erd er,‘that the animals are the older brothers o f m en’. This expert
C u v ie r,b y M a n e - dabbler in all and sundry, this mind o f insatiable curiosity, embodied
N icolas P o n ce - J _ 1
Cam us. the antiquary in the best sense o f the term. W ith his friends Heyne
and Meyer, and in the steps o f Winckelmann, he had opened the way
to a rediscovery o f antique art, whilst his passion for natural history
made him one o f the forerunners o f human palaeontology. G oethe’s
unflagging interest in human and animal anatomy, his taste for old
ju n k —be it classical or prehistoric —perfectly symbolise the limits o f
the antiquaries’ knowledge at the start o f the nineteenth century.
Like C olt Hoare and Cunnington he came up against the problem o f
chronology, and like them he had not the wherewithal to establish a
periodisation o f the remains which formed a sort o f compact mass,
impossible to put in order in the absence o f a typological method.
To break the deadlock it was necessary to com bine geological
290
inform ation with the comparative study o f artefacts. T he tradition o f

eighteenth-century antiquaries offered no preparation for this sort o f
exercise. Johann Gustav Biisching (1783—1829), the tireless explorer
o f Silesia’s past, was an excellent example. Despite his desire to dissect
every tumulus he found, despite the care with which he conducted
excavations, his recourse to sieving o f the spoil heaps ,23 it was
impossible for him to begin to pierce the mists o f chronology for the
‘pagan period’. R om antic Germany, like England at the start o f the
nineteenth century, was full o f enthusiastic antiquaries. Perhaps it was
this very sense o f a national past, so highly developed in the pastors
o f the eighteenth century, that becam e a national passion for a
m iddle-class traum atised by the N ap oleon ic conquest. Was not
E rnst M oritz Ardnt to w rite, ‘We, the people o f Germany, feel a
Protoh istoric
antiquities from a
G erm an co llectio n .
D raw ing by W ilhelm
T isch b ein , 1 808.
In 18 0 8 , at the
instigation o f D uke
Peter von O ld en bu rg,
T isch b ein visited a
private co llectio n in
Eu tin . His drawings
w ere published by
F.J.L. M eyer in 1816.
nostalgia analogous to that of the deer which snort in the Spring for
setting out in search o f our history ’? 24 This enthusiasm, which was
responsible for a huge increase in the number o f excavations and
archaeological museums, and which led to the development o f new
techniques o f investigating the soil, ran into a fog, was blocked by
b elief in a Flood, just as had happened in Great Britain. This
undoubtedly explains the lack o f interest, and even the critical stance
o f the German archaeologists towards the Three Age theory, which
seemed to them to obscure the central problem o f ante-historic
archaeology: the ethnic question.
Goethe, Vulpius, Busching and of course Lindenschmidt, founder
o f the R o m isch -G erm a n isch e Z en tral M useum at M ainz, had
contributed to create, like C olt Hoare and Legrand d’Aussy, the
framework for a descriptive method — what may be termed an
291
G oeth e in the R om an
C ountryside,W ilh elm
T isc h b ein , 1 7 8 7 . In
this fam ous painting
the arch aeological
allusions are evident,
b u t they illustrate only
o n e aspect o f G o e th e ’s
and T isch b ein s
interest.
‘ archaeography’. But they lacked the typological tool and the idea o f
the continuity o f geology and history to be able to enter fully into
the era o f archaeology.
W hilst geology and palaeontology underwent rapid development,
increasingly numerous discoveries came to enrich and transform dis
cussions on the origins o f mankind. Francois Jouannet, a printer and
professor o f Humanities, was the first in a long series o f attentive and
determined observers who anticipated the idea o f prehistory. In 1810
he discovered on the hill at E corn eboeu f, near Perigueux, a pre
historic site from w hich he recovered worked flint, bronzes and
Gallic coins .25 Jou an n et’s discovery was all the more interesting
because it indicated the presence o f ancient industries beyond the
context o f caves. Jouannet was a classical scholar, whose attention was
naturally drawn to artefacts rather than fauna. Some years later, still
in the same area, he undertook the excavation o f the Badegoule cave.
Publishing his excavations in the Calendrier de la Dordogne, he sug
gested a cultural and chronological difference between chipped and
polished stone. In 1814 Traulle and M ongez proposed establishing a
stratigraphy to study the archaeological remains o f the most remote
periods .26 In 1835 the doctor Casimir Picard o f Abbeville published
some ‘Celtic tools o f stag-horn’ found in excavations at Abbeville.
O n this occasion he undertook a systematic study o f the flints to
292
5 — the i n v e n t i o n of a r c h a e o l o g y
demonstrate that the ‘flaked stones’ were not the rough-outs for the
polished flints but related to a different technique. Above all, to establish
the origin o f his discoveries, Picard published a careful description o f
their mode o f deposition and suggested a stratigraphic dating:
From these patterns one can thus conclude:
1. that the antler sleeves o f C eltic axes an d other pieces o f the sam e
m aterial w orked in diverse ways were in use at a p eriod w hen there lived
in our country an im al species either now lost or displaced, such as the
urus, the beaver, etc.;
2. that consequently, the flin t axes are contem porary with these sam e
an im als;
3. that the fo rm a tio n o f the p ea t is contem porary at least in great p art
with these two historical fa cts;
4. that in our valley at least the fo rm a tio n o f p art o f the p e a t dates to
historic tim es.27
We can see what progress had been made. Picard was not content
with a simple description o f the fauna and the objects he discovered,
he integrated geological inform ation, thoughts on typology and
stratigraphic analysis to support his chronology.
In 1823 W illiam Buckland published his R eliqu iae diluvianae, where
he listed all the known associations, nine at the time, between Pleis
tocene mammals and human remains. After close analysis o f all the
sites, and visits to several o f them, he concluded that ‘human bones
do not have the same antiquity as the antediluvian animals which
appear in the same caves’ .28 T h e case for intrusion was, it seemed,
unstoppable. He always managed to find a pit, fault or tectonic
movem ent which would explain the simultaneous presence o f
extinct species and human remains in a cave. W hen, whilst excavating
K ent’s Cavern in Devonshire a few years later, Father Joh n M acEnery
discovered a level filled w ith extinct mammals and flints sealed by a
layer o f breccia, he chose — under the influence and chiding o f
Buckland — to believe that the worked flints were intrusive, and he
soon gave up on the exploration o f this promising cave.29
In the same period, however, three scholars in the south o f France
arrived at conclusions which were directly opposed to those o f their
English colleagues. Marcel de Serres, a naturalist from M ontpellier
who had studied in Paris with Cuvier and Lamarck, was a friend o f
Buckland and taught in the faculty o f science at M ontpellier. Jules
de C hristol helped him in his research, as well as Paul Tournal, a
M ontpellier pharmacist who had studied in Paris. T h e com bined
293
Fossil bo n es and tools

found in caves near T a m .a .P L X X X V l
Liege. Plate from
Ph ilippe-C h arles
Schm erling's bo ok ,
1 8 3 3 -4 .
abilities o f these three researchers enabled them within a few years to

discover and publish material from several caves in which fossil fauna
were associated with the remains o f human activity. The Montpellier
team constituted the first intellectual group to engage in the affirma
tion o f the very great antiquity o f mankind. The three friends pub
lished the results o f their excavations and adhered absolutely to their
identification o f fossil animals and their analysis o f flints,311 not afraid,
it seems, o f boldly affirming their conclusions:
T he geology which supplem ents our short annals w ill come to reaw aken
hum an p rid e in show ing the antiquity of our race. F or only geology can
from henceforth give us som e idea of the p eriod of the first appearance o f
man on ea rth .3I
As a consequence o f this prophetic declaration o f faith, and despite
the reputation o f Marcel de Serres, these results were not accepted by
the m ajority o f geologists and palaeontologists, especially after
CAivier’s total opposition. Nevertheless, in stating that one must set
out from ‘present processes’, from observation o f contemporary geo
logical phenom ena, Tournal largely anticipated the uniformitarian
geology o f Lyell and the prehistory o f Boucher de Perthes .32 In dis
carding the idea o f the Flood, so dear to the first prehistorians, he
laid the foundations o f belief in the continuity between ancient and
modern times, between prehistoric and modern m an .33 A physician
from Liege, D r Schm erling, published in 1833 a volume entitled
Recherches sur les ossements fossiles decouverts dans les cavernes de la
294
province de Liege (Researches on the Fossil Bones Discovered in the Caverns

o f the Province of Liege), which reached the same conclusions as his
predecessors in Montpellier. Nevertheless, the learned world was still
not convinced o f the great antiquity o f mankind ...
THE T H R E E AGE M O D E L AND

TH E F O U N D A T I O N OF
C O M P A R A T I V E A R C H A E O L O G Y
For more than a century, above all since Aubrey and Caylus, intelligent
minds had realised that it was possible to classify the remains o f the past
through using the intrinsic characteristics o f these to order them in
time. This method, com m on to anti
quaries and geologists, had not only
drastically changed geology at the
beginning o f the nineteenth century,
but had led equally to enormous
progress in the field o f historical, classi
cal and, soon, Near Eastern archaeology.
From these beginnings nineteenth-
century archaeological curiosity was
not confined to geologists and palaeon
tologists but stretched to encompass
the entire eastern M editerranean. It
certainly touched Greece, where the
struggle for independence had
mobilised European opinion and
towards which an ever-increasing number o f travellers were flocking, V iew o f the great
hall o f the Institut
inflamed by the ideas o f W inckelm ann and the poems o f Goethe,
d’Egypte, drawn by
Holderlin and Byron. Besides, this dream t-of Greece was there to be Protain in 1 7 9 8 .
T h e Institut was
admired in the galleries o f the great museums o f Europe. In purchas
inaugurated by
ing the Parthenon friezes from Lord Elgin and putting them on Bonaparte.
public display, the British Museum led the way. There had been long
battles before the cognoscenti were prepared to accept that these were
Greek originals and not R o m an copies, but once the matter was
cleared up a true fervour for Greek art gripped the European bour
geoisie. This appetite for Greece was only ju st equalled by another
passion, more exotic but quite as strong — that for Egypt. For millen
nia, ever since Herodotus, the mystery o f Egypt had intrigued
295
THE D I SC O V ER Y OF T H E P A S T
D o m in iq u e Vivant
D e n o n m easuring
the sphinx, from
Voyage pittoresque dans
la Basse et H aute
E gypte, by Vivant
D en o n , 1802.
O pp osite: Europe, but after the Arab invasion in the seventh century relations
F rontisp iece o f Ed m e
were strained with an empire which, for the Greeks and Rom ans, was
Jo m a rd ’s R ecueil des
observations et des one o f the pillars o f culture and religion, the model o f a barbarian
recherches qui ont ete
wisdom w ithout w hich the classical world could not have been
jait.es en Egypte pendant
êxpedition de Varmee achieved. W hat was generally known o f the ancient Egyptians were
franâise, 1 8 0 9 —22.
the pyramids, the hieroglyphs — which since Cristoforo Buondel-
m on ti’s discovery in 1420 had attracted all the eager minds o f the
learned world —and the mummies. W ith the expedition to Egypt and
the dozens o f scientists who accompanied Bonaparte, Egypt became
as attractive as Greece. T he various publications — notably the sump
tuous E xpedition d ’Egypte published by an unrivalled organiser, Edme
Jomard — inspired an ‘Egyptian style’, which influenced architecture
as much as the plastic arts. Added to this the country, under the direc
tion o f a reform ing monarch, Muhammad Ali, opened itself up to
western influences. T h e time o f the lone explorer or bold merchant
who for centuries had been the only Europeans to travel in Egypt
was gone. N ow came the engineers, diplomats and adventurers who
worked in the service o f the kingdom and the two colonial powers,
England and France. Despite their defeat, the French retained a firm
presence in Egypt. T h e Consul General o f France, Bernardin
Drovetti, who had been nominated by Napoleon, knew how to curry
favour with the authorities. H e made the most o f this by occupying
his numerous leisure hours with undertaking excavations and estab
lishing a fabulous collection, destined for Europe. H enry Salt, the
English consul, worked to the same end, but with the prestige and
support o f the victorious power. He rapidly enlisted the assistance o f
Giovanni Belzoni, a colourful personality — adventurer, entrepreneur
296
5 - THK I N V E N T I O N OF A R C H A E O L O G Y
291
and soon one o f the most effective collectors o f Egyptian antiquities,

this giant had begun his career as a circus strong-man. There was no
point in expecting from these excavators on a large scale the same
precision or taste for knowledge as that o f the landscape antiquaries
o f the eighteenth century. These men were the successors o f Elgin
and Choiseul-Gouffier, heirs o f the expeditious methods o f Fauvel
and Lusieri. But they inundated the European museums with Egypt
ian objects. Drovetti was to sell no fewer than three collections: one
to Turin, another to Paris, and the last to Berlin. Belzoni turned him
self into a kind o f Egyptological entrepreneur. In London in 1821 he
opened the Egyptian Hall, an exhibition o f Egyptian works which
attracted great crowds. To the enthusiasm o f governments and the
audacity o f adventurers was added a third element which succeeded
in swaying opinion: a young and romantic scientist had just found the
key to the decipherm ent o f hieroglyphs. For four centuries hiero
glyphs had seemed an unfathomable mystery o f symbols. In demon
strating that they were a system o f writing, and in establishing the
pattern o f development from this system to the demotic alphabet —in
recognising in ancient Egyptian the language o f the Christians o f
Egypt —Jean-Francois Champollion revealed to Europe a new world
o f knowledge. His discovery, which was contemporary with that o f
the decipherment o f the cuneiform script, had much more impact
because it resolved a problem which had exercised scholars for so
many decades, and because it arrived just in time to allow the discov
eries o f the heirs to the Egyptian expedition to bear fruit. From the
standpoint o f the history o f knowledge, the decipherm ent o f the
Egyptian language coincided with the apogee o f modern methods o f
classical philology. Having laid the foundations o f a comparative
philology which revitalised the heritage o f the Renaissance, the
philologists successfully tackled the languages o f the ancient East.
Cham pollion’s success was a stroke o f genius, but it had been pre
pared for by the development o f philological methods and their
application to the Eastern languages: Abbe Barthelemy with Palym-
rian, and Sylvestre de Sacy with Old Persian had opened the way. In
demonstrating that the hieroglyphs could no longer hold out against
the knowledge o f philologists, Cham pollion gave O rientialism the
right to becom e a separate branch o f knowledge. From this point on
the entire Near East was open for archaeological exploration.
However, it was northern Europe which launched a model which
was to revolutionise archaeology just as much as the decipherment o f
298
T h e Bronze Age
to m b o f Kivik,
Sw eden. O n the low er
rig h t are depicted the
carved designs from
the funerary cham ber.
T h is is o ne o f
Scandinavia’s m ost
fam ous m egalithic
m onum ents.
hieroglyphs had transform ed O rientalism . C hristian Jiirgensen

Thom sen was the first archaeologist (in 1819) to design a museum
around the stone—bronze—iron succession; above all he was the most
determined advocate o f the need for technological as well as typolog
ical comparison between archaeological and ethnographic objects.
Father Louis Hennepin, in his description o f Louisiana in 1683,
had already drawn on this type o f observation, and there had even
been a Danish Humanist, Johann Laverentzen, who suggested the
usefulness o f ethnography in the interpretation o f archaeological
ob jects .34 B u t not until Thom sen were such suggestions put into
practice: ‘The experience demonstrates that comparable conditions
and, in particular, an equivalent cultural level lead to equivalent
instruments to produce the necessities [of life ].’35 In giving such pre
cise expression to the law o f cultural similarity, Thom sen added to
the typological rules o f Caylus a means o f analysing objects which
was not only descriptive but technical and laid the foundations o f a
prehistory which was no longer dependent upon texts:
It seem s evident to me that at an early period all o f northern E urope
was in habited by very sim ilar prim itive races. T h at they correspond to the
N orth A m erican savages seem s to me certain in several respects. T h ey were
w arlike, lived in forests, and possessed little or no m etal .36
This first picture o f a preliterate, prehistoric Europe coincided
with the revelation o f the great antiquity o f humanity. Th om sen ’s
originality did not just lie in his justification o f the old Three Age
model w hich, with occasional eclipses, had inspired philosophers,
historians and antiquaries ever since antiquity. It was also evident in
299
the practical consequences which he drew from this model —establish

ing a chronology w hich would be the basis o f an exposition access
ible to all. T h e im portance o f the m ethod he proposed could be
verified empirically in the galleries o f the new Copenhagen
museum. The revolution in chronology in European archaeology was
born within a museum which, at the time, was the most complete
tool for understanding the prehistoric past o f Europe. Strengthened
by their long tradition, the Scandinavian antiquaries had understood,
ahead o f their British, German and central European colleagues, that
the exploration o f the past required a new format which could not
be confused with the cabinet o f curiosities or the art museum: the
museum o f comparative archaeology. At
0Uttgjlcatee:
the time no European museum could
offer collections as full as those in
Copenhagen. In 1836 Thom sen pub
lished his G u id e to N orthern A ntiquities,
but his system had already been elabo
Jff tut fecfit ©lags (at man mange iBatiatfonei. Set anbet @(1199
et inbnu atmlnbelisere, 09 f?ne4 ligtfom f)ine at (tenure tit be cetbce,
rated and put into practice ten years ear
osfiia nf bi«fi bee, jfjsnbt be i $ottebprinclptt tigne ben afbits lier, w hen he was working on the
bebe, ntinbte ffiariationet meb $enfpn tit ©tsmtfe, SRinaeS Vntal,
ordering o f his collections.
ffliibtyimftet 0. b. t. *
© p irn lj m ite r: Bob bet tfpl ratj fet: A museum man, Thom sen was set
apart from his contem poraries because
he sought to organise not single objects
but the assemblages to w hich he had
had access as a result o f his role as secre
tary to the Commission o f Antiquities o f
D ev elop m en t o f the kingdom o f Denmark. W ith the help o f young collaborators and
B ro n z e A ge o rn am en t
in Scandinavia, from
the Danish army, he had undertaken excavations on the island o f
T h o m s e n ’s G u ide to Bornholm . Som e time later he organised an excavation o f the site o f
N o rdic A ntiqu i fi es,
Hvidegaard in Zealand. It was a well-preserved Bronze Age burial,
183 6 .
and he ensured the most accurate results possible through entrusting
the analysis o f the organic remains to com petent naturalists. T h e
quality o f excavation and the precision o f the report published a few
years later 37 attested to his qualities o f observation. Thom sen’s system
was not a theoretical model spontaneously thrown together on its
author’s intuition, but the product o f minute descriptions o f assem
blages, systematically compared one with the other. T h e essential
obstacle to a bronze—iron succession lay in the fact that the Iron Age
assemblages had both bronze and iron objects. Thomsen pointed out
that Iron Age finds were characterised by the use o f iron cutting-
300
tools. In moving on from the analysis o f the

single ob ject to the assemblage, Thom sen dis
covered the com binatorial m ethod which
allowed him, on the basis o f increasingly large
groups, to arrive at a general chronology:
T h e great ston e-cham bered tombs seem to have
been constructed at a tim e w hen the fir s t m etals
were gradually and slow ly beginning to be used in
Scandinavia. M ainly, we have only fo u n d in their
interior, as already noted, unburnt bodies, often with
coarse urns, rarely m etal objects an d in all these
instances a little bron ze or g old but never iron or
silver, but most times only stone objects and sim ple
am ber ornam ents ,38 „Det fersle antiquariske Fund. Efter Nogles Beretning var
det cn Fyrrepind, m en gamle paalidelige Koner i Jellinge
have forsikret mig, at det var et Sv*rd“.
To construct such a chronology it was not (M iiiarm esler M aile r, W o rsaae , H erb st, Steffensen).
enough to pay attention to the different types o f

objects; it was vital to establish the necessary associations, and to be A group o f D anish
archaeologists at w ork
assured o f the quality o f the observations w'hich had validated them.
in Jellin g , as seen by
Antiquaries who were sufficiently in control o f assemblages to estab J . K ornerup, 1 8 6 1 :
‘T h e first
lish reliable associations were few and far between until Thomsen.
arch aeological find
His need to organise things in series and his attention to the land was, after som e
discussion, th ou g ht to
scape had led him to discover one o f the cardinal principles o f
be a p oker; but som e
archaeological chronology. T h om sen ’s role in the development o f old w om en o f Jellin g
w h o w ere trustw orthy
Scandinavian prehistory was not only that o f a formidable innovative
assured m e that it was
thinker. H e was also an organiser and keen advocate o f landscape a sword.’
archaeology who did not hesitate, strengthened by his experience as
a self-taught businessman, to organise, mobilise and convince. For the
Danish society w hich sought confirm ation o f its coherence in the
past, he knew how to offer a convincing picture o f the origins o f
Denmark. T h e public crowded his museum, which he opened up to
them with his unflagging good will. Thom sen knew how to inspire
a vocation, and in particular he won the close collaboration o f a
young man who was to becom e his prestigious successor: Jen Jacob
W orsaae.The latter was only fifteen w hen he began to frequent the
museum and take part in the excavations. At twenty, Worsaae pub
lished his first excavation report w hich confirm ed T h om sen ’s
system; three years later he completed a synthesis which established
itself as the most ambitious handbook o f Scandinavian prehistory,
D anem arks O ldtid (D anish A ntiquity). In a more polished style than
that o f his master, based on new excavations and a m ore exact
301
THE DISCOVERY OH T H E PAS' I
chronology, he revealed to thousands o f readers that it was possible

to w rite a history before history, w hich could satisfy all the
demands o f establishing p ro of as well as being highly readable. B u t
Worsaae did not stop at Scandinavian archaeology. H e soon
launched into a series o f travels in England and Ireland w hich led
to the publication o f a book on N ordic civilisation in England,
Scotland and Ireland and w hich was the first synthesis devoted to
a comparative analysis o f N ordic peoples in European prehistory.
W ith Worsaae, and thanks to the T h ree Age theory, knowledge o f
the past could free itself from the weight o f tradition. W h ile draw
ing on w ritten sources the archaeologist could em ploy a tool
w hich enabled him to organise the finds in tim e. H e was not
afraid to search for missing inform ation among the geologists and
zoologists. Worsaae proved the w orth o f his system by resolving a
Scandinavian problem through the application o f his comparative
m ethod. W orks on the coast o f Jutland in 1848 had uncovered a
massive heap o f oyster shells mixed with flint and bone fragments.
Assisted by the zoologist Japetus Steenstrup and the geologist
Johann G eorg Forchham m er, Worsaae addressed the problem and
the three researchers soon demonstrated that these were cooking
remains from the Stone Age:
In holding to the theory that oysters are fou n d now here in the area
around M ejlgaard except, within the heap that I have described, which is
very closely defined, and that the archaeological objects were dispersed in
its interior at the sam e time as the charcoal and the an im al bones, one
cannot but think that at an early prehistoric p eriod , when the shoreline
was close to this deposit, there was a sort of canteen for the local populace.
This w ould explain the cooking equipm ent, the charcoal, the an im al bones
and the flint blades (to open the oysters ) . 39
In identifying the ‘kitchen m idden’ (K fo kk en m od d in g er),W ov sa ae
did not simply answer an archaeological enquiry. He demonstrated
that a multi-disciplinary approach to the finds and an effective exca
vation could allow the prehistorian to resolve an archaeological
problem without recourse to written sources. It thus became possible
to confront the problems o f relative chronology for the Stone Age.
How did the ‘kitchen m idden’ relate to the civilisation o f the Scandi
navian megaliths?
In the accum ulations o f oysters, the flints arc generally o f a particular
type, very rough; the sam e goes for the pottery, and one also finds bone
objects of a particular class in great numbers. B y contrast, the flints, stone
302
tools, pottery, am ber ornam ents an d other fin ds from the m egalithic graves
are much more developed and show a different m ethod o f m anufacture.40
Step by step, with their characteristic quiet tenacity, the Scan
dinavian archaeologists (the Swedes soon join ed the Danes in their
work on prehistory) contributed towards the exploration, on ever
more solid foundations, o f the origins o f mankind. Their progress,
linked to close observation o f the landscape, allowed the establish
ment o f an evolutionary model which opened the way for a more
general consideration o f the history o f the first human societies.
T h eir success, which was more advanced than that o f their English
or French contem poraries, was undoubtedly founded on the fact
that they announced their findings in the name o f a discipline which
was more readily accepted because it had been recognised since the
seventeenth century as one o f the components o f national history.
But they also held to the fact that the Three Age theory was born at
the heart o f antiquarian knowledge, certainly still diffuse but well
defined. Elsewhere in Europe antiquaries had to take the critical step
and appropriate the tools o f the natural sciences to affirm a new
discipline which united the two cultures, natural and Humanist. O f
course in Scandinavia Thom sen had had his critics. But these were
nothing in comparison with the storms raised by the explorers o f
man’s antiquity in France and Great Britain. However, adversity had
its benefits. T h e ferocious polem ic which tore the scientific world
apart, and the need to establish the finds by precise and incontrovert
ible observations, led prehistorians to pick up on all the arguments
developed by their predecessors and to propose a stratigraphic, tech
nological and typological analysis o f remains:
It is not only the form and m aterial o f the object which serves to estab
lish its great antiquity [■■■]■ Further, it is its p osition ; it is its depth from
the surface; it is also that o f the overlying layers and the debris which com
p osed them ; fin ally it is the certainty that here is its original soil, the earth
trodden by the artisan w ho m ade it.4]
W hat the founding fathers o f prehistory gave to modern archaeol
ogy derived from a triangle o f reciprocal relations: type, technology
and stratigraphy. From these three concepts was to emerge the
archaeological positivism which would give archaeology its scientific
foundations.
303
T H I N K I N G OF A R C H A E O L O G Y
AS A N A T U R A L S C I E N C E
THE P H I L O L O G IC A L M O D E L
G e r h a r d a n d th e I n s titu to d i C o r r is p o n d e n z a
W ith the idea o f a natural history o f mankind, through contact with

geologists and zoologists and, soon, under the aegis o f Darwin, pre
historians o f the nineteenth century contrived to lay the foundations
o f a global prehistory, which is at the root o f modern archaeology.
However, the debate opened in the sixteenth century by Antonio
Agostino continued. During the whole o f the first half o f the nine
teenth century classical archaeologists sought to free themselves from
the influence o f the world o f collectors and artists, and strove to get
archaeology, the twin sister o f philology but decidedly independent,
recognised as legitimate through an academic institution. In publish
ing his archaeological precepts in the Archdologische Zeitung in 1850,
Eduard Gerhard, a m ilitant advocate o f a rational and historical
archaeology, pleaded both for the independence o f archaeology and
for affirmation o f its philological nature:
T h e study o f the m onum ents o f classical antiquity must begin with this
literary know ledge on which rests that which one calls in a narrow sense
philology. T h e archaeologist devotes h im s elf to the m onum ental com ponent
by starting from philological evidence. A ll kinds o f am ateurs o f antiquities
unite to procure for him the prim ary m aterial f o r his studies, just lik e the
artists who advise and enlighten him . T his dependence o f the archaeologist
on the am ateurs oj antiquities and the artists which has often led to the
reprehensible developm ent o f w hat one might call antiquarian dilettantism
[.. f poses m any problem s.42
Since the Renaissance, with the development o f collections, and as
a result o f W inckelm ann’s inspired work, G raeco-Rom an antiquities
had becom e not only objects o f enquiry, status symbols — indeed a
means o f enrichm ent —but also the school o f an aesthetic which con
sidered G raeco-R om an civilisation to be unsurpassable. In seeking to
free himself from ‘antiquarian dilettantism’, from philosophical sym
bolism and from the adulatory aesthetics o f the men o f the eighteenth
century, Gerhard had to accept without questioning the precepts o f
German philology. It was a matter o f replacing intuitive reverence for
antiquity with something more reasoned but just as absolute:
304
To develop a philolog ical archaeology it is not

necessary to adapt its m ethods to the needs o f
am ateurs o f antiquities or artists - although it is
recom m ended to involve them - but it must be
fo u n d e d on a close relation w ith philological teach
ing in its entirety [ ...] . I f the philologists, fo llo w
ing their aesthetic inclinations, rem ain distanced
fro m the arts o f the ancients, they fo rg et that the
an tiqu e m onum ents are o f interest not ju s t to
them selves, but are in dispen sable sources f o r the
understanding o f antiquity .43
Gerhard had to battle on two fronts: against
the antiquaries o f the old school, who were
more concerned with the form o f objects than
with their evolution, and against those philolo
gists, who in the style o f Theodor Mommsen,
took archaeologists for the illiterates o f history.
This was a social paradox w hich tended to
narrow the scientific and technological h o ri
zons o f classical archaeology, engaging it in an
unequal contest with philology in order to give it an equivalent A n tiquaries at w ork,
by G iovan Battista
apparatus o f scholarship. For the project o f Gerhard and his contem
Passeri, an enthusiast
poraries was to transform the science o f the antiquaries into a sci o f things Etruscan,
1767.
ence o f antiquity — a semantic shift more important than it seemed,
since it would lead to the creation o f new types o f institution.
Yet again it was in R o m e that everything was to begin; the city
was the m erry-go-round o f the learned. W hilst English travellers
were more numerous in Greece, German professors felt at home in
R o m e. T h e way had been opened by a Dane, Georg Zoega, who
established him self as an archaeologist in 1784 and soon became the
Danish Consul General. Th en , in the procession o f Prussian diplo
matic representatives to R o m e, came the glories o f German intellect:
W ilhelm von Humboldt (1802—08), the R om an historian Barthold
Niebuhr (1816—23), join ed once by the traveller and collector Jacob
Bartholdy (in 1818), and finally, in 1827, the diplomat, theologian
and archaeologist, Christian von Bunsen (until 1838). Bunsen’s social
graces, his great culture and relationships with men as diverse as
Schelling, Creuzer, Lachmann and many others, made his house in
R o m e a meeting point for artists, archaeologists and scholars from
every country: the sculptor Thorwaldsen, but also Chateaubriand,
305
Champollion and Leopardi.44 A galaxy o f archaeologists soon con

gregated around Bunsen; they included F.G. Welcker, professor at
Bonn and one o f the most renowned philologists o f the time, and
also young scholars o f repute such as Theodor Panofka and Gerhard.
T he latter was to becom e the lifetime administrator o f a quite extra
ordinary organisation wThich opened in 1828 thanks to the initiative
o f Bunsen: the Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica.
T h e Instituto was conceived as an international organisation
charged with the regular publication o f the most notable archaeo
logical discoveries. It consisted o f a central section in R o m e which
co-ordinated the work o f the resident archaeologists o f various
nationalities, and the national sections, German, French and English.
Bunsens support in housing the Instituto in his embassy was com -
D raw ing from the pleted by a subsidy from the Crown Prince o f Prussia (the future
Etruscan to m b in
Frederick-W illiam IV) and a personal contribution from a young
Tarquinia know n as
the T om b o f the French aristocrat devoted to archaeology, the Due de Luynes. Here
T riclin iu m , by Carlo
were assembled the flower o f contemporary learning — from G er
R u sp i, 1 8 3 2 . It reveals
the precision desired many, August B ock , Friedrich Creuzer, Carl O ttfried M iiller; from
by archaeologists at
France, Quatremere de Q uincy and Charles Lenormand; from Italy,
the beg in n in g o f the
n in eteen th centurv. Carlo Fea and Bartolom eo Borghesi — as well as famous collectors,
the Englishman James Millingen, the dues de Luynes and Blacas, and
leading diplomats like M etternich and Humboldt. W ith the Instituto,
method (academic philology), aesthetics (embodied in the heritage o f
W inckelm ann), and the tradition o f the Grand Tour com bined to
give birth to a new enterprise. Collecting and the material acquisi
tion o f objects from that m om ent on counted for less than interest in
the unknow n; the desire for knowledge prevailed over sensibility.
To achieve these goals there had to be adequate publications which
individually answered specific questions. T h e Instituto was also a
publishing house which produced various series: Bulletino for rapid
306
5 - THE IN V E N T IO N OF A R C H A E O L O G Y
inform ation, A n n ali for scientific com m unications, M onum enti for
monographs on monuments. The aim was to create a kind o f living
encyclopaedia o f archaeology equipped henceforth with categories
and specialities: museum catalogues, topographic description, epigra
phy, ceramic studies, iconography.
The discovery o f the Vulci tombs in 1828 opened up new realms
for this conquering and confident archaeology. For Italy at the
beginning o f the nineteenth century was living an ‘Etruscan dream’.
Even if, since the sixteenth century, the Etruscans had played a criti
cal role in the ideas that the Italians (and especially the Tuscans) had
developed concerning their origins, and even if in the eighteenth
V iew o f the h om e
o f the Institu te di
Corrispon den za
A rch eo log ica in
R o m e , bu ilt in 1 8 3 5 .
century the Etruscan question had played the same role in Italian his
toriography as that o f the Gauls in France, it was only around the
1820s that Etruscology becam e Etruscomania, with the systematic
exploration o f the Tuscan cemeteries. An awestruck Gerhard was pre
sent at the discovery o f one o f the greatest Archaic and Classical
period cemeteries o f the ancient world, on the land o f Lucien B ona
parte, Prince o f Canino. Vases and urns here became as covetable as
statues. In selling his collection o f painted vases to the British
Museum, the British Ambassador to Naples, Sir W illiam Hamilton,
raised painted vases to the status o f a symbol o f the taste for the
antique. This soon included such men as Lucien Bonaparte, who as a
result made more money from the excavation o f Etrurian cemeteries
than they did from farming that same land. From here came the pas
sion for ‘Etruscan’ vases (Etruscan because found in Etruria, W inckel
mann having been one o f the few to hold them as Greek), which was
to develop into Etruscomania when the first painted tombs appeared.
307
Gerhard’s archaeological theories provide an unparalleled review

o f the exact state o f classical archaeology in the first half o f the nine
teenth century. For those who saw themselves as archaeologists as
opposed to the more adventurous antiquaries, the age o f random col
lecting and aesthetic pleasure for its own sake had gone.
Just as the school o f German philology had liberated itself from
theology, so the school o f archaeology had to assume its autonomy.
W ith one reservation, however, for this independence o f archaeology
existed only within the framework o f the ‘science
o f antiquity’. Archaeology shared the same goals
as philology, but it was to achieve them through
other means. For this to happen it had to becom e
professional in the face o f com petition from
artists and travellers, and also in view o f the
philologists’ claim to precedence. After more than
thirty years spent fighting for the intellectual
independence o f archaeology, Gerhard could
speak out loud and clear. In Germany after the
1848 revolution, schools o f archaeology flour
ished everywhere. At that tim e more than ten
Germ an universities had chairs o f archaeology,
whilst Great Britain and France had only one
each. This success can be explained by the tri
umphal route established by the German schools
o f philology, but it was also based on the refined
ideological model elaborated by Gerhard and his
contem poraries. Faced with a more accessible
M editerranean, European culture could no
E levation , section , plan longer content itself with the booty o f knowledge and treasure-
and details o f a
hunting w hich had so far prevailed. Archaeology could claim a place
tumulus and view o f
the n ecropolis o f as a positive science founded on concrete results.The practical nature
Tarquinia, drawn by
o f the new way had not only theoretical consequences but could, and
H en ri Labrouste in
1 8 2 9 .T h is drawing must, illuminate ‘ancient life’. Antiquity became a source o f innova
dem onstrates the tion and no longer o f imitation; it revealed technological solutions
interest in the
Etruscans show n by and practical knowledge which could be applied to the present. T he
th e architects attached achievements o f architects and works by sculptors and painters could
to th e A cad em ie de
Fran ce in R o m e . be enriched by archaeology, ju st as archaeology fed on the arts.
Antiquity explained, the heritage o f the eighteenth century, became
a living antiquity that could be touched and analysed by its range o f
techniques and its regional diversity.
308
However, confronted by the philologists, Gerhard knew how to

take advantage o f the mystery o f archaeology and the emotions that
it engendered. H e demanded recognition o f the credit to be gained
on the ground through association with diplomats and travellers. The
archaeologists who succeeded the philologists at the universities had
to assert themselves through their connections, through the interest
they aroused in high society and the royal courts, in short, through
being distinguished not just by simple academic merit.
However, Gerhard’s full and ambitious programme fell down on
one detail. His archaeological propositions made no solid reference
to excavation other than implicitly: archaeology was conceived o f as
a collecting activity. I f the workmen contributed, as at Pompeii or
Canino, it was by sheer chance. True archaeological work began
when objects were made available in collections or museums. For
Gerhard’s contemporaries excavation was no different to surveying
or cataloguing but was just a means o f extracting remains from the
soil. However, it was only another ten years before French or
German excavations in Greece posed the problem in a radically dif
ferent way, and above all for the arrival o f H einrich Schliemann to
remind the university establishment that it did not own the copy
right to the image o f antiquity.
In its step-by-step confrontation with philology Gerhard’s archae
ology progressively came to lose all historical pretension. If, to return
to W o lf’s distinction, the characteristic o f history was das Werden.de,
then the characteristic o f archaeology was das G ew orden e.45 An
unequal struggle w hich left philologists in contact with living
sources and archaeologists grappling with dead ones. I f the ultimate
goal o f archaeology was to fabricate infinite groups and classes
without allowing explanation o f the past (i.e. to produce history),
what good were the boring minutiae o f typology? T h e path o f pos
itive archaeology, threatened by the intolerance o f aesthetes and the
acerbity o f philologists, was very constrained. T h e philological
paradigm certainly formed a good means o f technical advance and
social recognition in the service o f archaeology, but in the final reck
oning it proved itself an impediment. Basically Gerhard was much
closer to M ontfaucon than to B oucher de Perthes, as was expressed
by H um boldt in a letter to M etternich defending the Instituto di
Corrispondenza against the suspicions o f the Vatican:
T he A rchaeological Society, by the nature o f its cosm opolitan com posi
tion, by the pu rity o f its p u rely artistic purposes, has already rendered
309
m assive services to the cause o f the progress o f the arts. It professes no

political tendency other than that to reunite, as around a single hearth, the
divergent lines o f g oo d taste, and no other b e lie f other than that which lifts
the soul to noble and great ideas.46
In short, Gerhard was a determined reformer, but in a particular
way narrow-minded. He remained confined by the concept o f classi
cal antiquity formed at the University o f Berlin under the sway o f
H um boldt and B ock. W holly preoccupied with the publication o f
catalogue after catalogue, with following up discoveries, with ‘keep
ing in w ith’ artistic and collecting circles, he had no time to interest
him self in what was happening beyond the frontiers o f classical
archaeology. However, it was from this remote antiquity, which had
not yet the right to be named prehistory, that the decisive thrust
would come.
THE T R I U M P H OF M A N ’S G R E A T A N T I Q U I T Y
B o u ch er de P erth es
W hat was there in com m on between Gerhard, with his fascinated

presence at the discovery o f the Etruscan tombs atVulci on the land
o f Lucien Bonaparte, Prince ol Canino, and such men as Tournai or
Schmerling, who scrutinised the depths o f the soil with an amaze
ment mixed with anguish, to discover a few animal bones or worked
flints? A similar faith in the idea that objects, if one knew what ques
tions to ask o f them, could speak. The transformation o f antiquarian
knowledge into an archaeological discipline came about by a care
devoted as much to objects and monuments as to the conditions o f
their burial. This new rigour called for the establishment o f certain
rules o f observation, retrieval and publication. The Danish archaeolo
gists had been the first to construct systematic rules in discovering
the cardinal role o f typology. By different routes classical archaeolo
gists had arrived at the same conclusions, but for these methods to be
applied to human fossils it was first necessary to admit to their exis
tence. All the discoveries o f the ‘forerunners o f prehistory’ had run
up against this centuries-old obstacle. In the first three decades o f the
nineteenth century geology and palaeontology had already achieved
immense progress. B ut for archaeologists themselves to benefit, they
had to overturn B u ffo n ’s proposition and transform medals into
shells and inscriptions into fossils. To think o f archaeology as natural
310
5 - t h e in v e n t io n or a r c h a e o l o g y
Excavation at
Biirglstcin near
Salzburg carried out
in 1825. In this picture
the excavation has the
air o f'a rom antic
co u n try outing.
history meant that the observers o f the earth had to draw on all the
‘scraps’, all the recoverable debris. This was — in contrast to the anti
quarian tradition — to favour the whole in relation to its parts.
It was to fall to Boucher de Perthes to fulfil this pilot’s role, even
though there was nothing obvious about this customs official from
Abbeville, this m ulti-talented man o f letters, to lead him to the
reconciliation o f human and natural sciences. His debt to D octor
Casimir Picard, who initiated archaeological survey and excavation in
the Somme Valley, is evident. But B oucher de Perthes succeeded in
making the final part o f his life (he began his work on the ground in
1837 at the age o f forty-nine) a ‘work o f science’ in the service o f
human history — this was the paradox o f a man who seemed less
equipped than many o f his predecessors to becom e the founder o f
a discipline.
As president o f a regional learned society, one o f many at the time,
he began by assisting his friend Picard’s researches both materially
and intellectually. He soon caught the fever for exploration and set
out to continue the work o f his friend, who died prematurely in
1841. B u t it was in 1837, below the town walls o f Abbeville, that
B oucher de Perthes began his work on the ground. Thus he came
across — at a depth o f over seven metres — an archaeological level
characterised by quantities o f animal remains, pottery and stone
tools. Encouraged by these first discoveries, which were nothing
spectacular (but accepted nonetheless by the Natural History
M useum for their collection), he undertook work on the site o f
M enchecourt-les-A bbeville, a site at which Cuvier had already iden
tified bones o f elephants and rhinoceros. It was there that he laid
hands on his first ‘antediluvian’ tools. Further discoveries followed,
311
but they were polished axes (N eolithic), the presence o f which

seemed intrusive to B ou cher de Perthes’s correspondents. H im self
made suspicious by their scepticism, he insisted that objects be
extracted in situ. In June 1842 he was able to retrieve an undeniably
in situ Palaeolithic biface. From this time onwards he began to keep a
systematic watch on works and quarries in the Abbeville region. B o l
stered by increasingly numerous discoveries, he threw him self into
the writing o f a volume which was to becom e the first part o f A n tiq
Sim plified section
m ade o f the soil at uites celtiques et antediluviennes. In 1846 a huge volume was finished
M e n c h e c o u rt near and sent to the Academie des Sciences for approval. It was a failure.
A bbeville, from
Antiquites ccltiques ct T h e appointed com m ittee took exception to most o f the author’s
autedihm etiiies by conclusions, and the work appeared in 1847 w ithout the much
B o u c h e r de Perthes
(1 8 4 7 ). His originality
desired approval o f this scientific body which B ou cher de Perthes
lay in his application held in such high regard.
to archaeological
layers o f the
D eterm ined but disorganised, Boucher de Perthes had made a rod
stratigraphic m ethods for his own back. His geological explanations were often summary,
o f the geologists o f
his drawings o f flints illegible, his functional interpretations naive and
the b eg in n in g o f the
n in eteen th century. his theories ambitious. There is no doubt that some o f his plates illus
trate doubtful objects, if not fakes. It was all
234 TERRAIN DILUV1EK.
assembled to ruffle the feathers o f a coterie
Coupe rcduite du terrain de Mcnchecourt w hich had shown itself hostile to researchers
more qualified than he.
However, even i f he deserved criticism ,
B oucher de Perthes’s work had the m erit o f van
tage point and originality. It made up the first
synthesis on stratigraphy as applied to archaeol
ogy. This is how he established the age o f a find:
On the m aterial, on the w orkm anship, and above
all on the subterranean p osition o f the objects. From
A now on we adm it a sort o f ladder o f life, a su perposi
.
tion o f layers fo rm ed by the debris o f generations and

- - we seek in each layer indices o f the history o f these
generations. Thus the deepest layers will offer us the
oldest gen erations.47
Many others before him had had an intuitive
idea o f stratigraphy, but no one had insisted with
\ such determination on the demonstrable value
o f stratigraphic observations provided that they
I were based on survey and identifiable conven
tions. In illustrating his type-sections and in
312
taking care to describe, like a geologist, the posi

tion and contents o f the strata which he studied,
B ou cher de Perthes crossed the threshold into
/
archaeological stratigraphy. H e did not neglect
the necessary typological study, but he made this
subservient to stratigraphy, in contrast to the
Scandinavian archaeologists. He did away with w
the suspicion w hich for at least half a century
had impeded the association o f human products
with fauna, on the pretext o f the ever-present
possibility o f the intrusion o f implements into
older layers. H e called for a comparable treat
m ent o f fauna, flora and artefacts. Equally, he
criticised the distaste o f his predecessors for the
$
lateral associations w h ich alone could yield
reliable dating:
T he study o f the p ea t bogs, no more than that o f
the diluvial beds, was not p u sh ed as far as it should
have been [ . . f . O ne can still distinguish in the peat,
especially at the time o f extraction, p art o f the vegetation which composes ‘A ntediluvian stones'
from A bbeville, from
it. T he flora o f the subterranean species, or the nom enclature o f the p ea t
A ntiquites celtiques et
plants, described layer by layer, as it rises towards the surface m arking the antediluvicnnes by
B o u ch e r de Perthes
succession o f species in the sam e location over m any centuries, could
(1 8 4 7 ). B o u ch e r de
dem onstrate the variations o f soil and clim ate .48 Perthes co m b in ed his
stratigraphic approach
Here was the clear expression o f the programme o f synthesis o f
w ith a typological
natural and human sciences which distinguished archaeology in its description o f the
desire to be freed from the antiquarian tradition. However sketchy, m aterial found.
hasty and sometimes even credulous, B ou cher de Perthes’s book

established the manifesto o f a new archaeological science which
dared to confront the prejudices o f the discipline.
From then on, even if they were a m inority in the learned world,
good intellects (such as Isidore Geoffroy Saint-H ilaire, son o f the
man w hom G oethe so much admired) accepted B ou ch er de
Perthes’s discoveries, whilst criticising his theories. Elsewhere, since
the haughty condemnations o f Buckland and Cuvier in denying the
existence o f human fossils, the situation had changed notably.
W illiam Pengelly had resumed M acE n ery’s excavations at K en t’s
Cavern and established that animal fossils and human industries were
definitely contemporary. Hugh Falconer, a brilliant British naturalist,
launched excavations at B rixh am Cave, supported by the R oyal
313
Society o f London, which confirm ed Pengelly’s results. Buckland’s

geology was now replaced by that o f Charles Lyell, which allowed
more space for the principles o f evolution and uniformitarianism,
that is to say the process in terrestrial geology, and in 1857 a human
fossil was discovered in Germany in the Neander Valley. Further
more, when Falconer visited Abbeville in 1858, he was rapidly con
vinced o f the interest o f the discoveries and lost
no time in inviting Jo h n Prestwich, a noted
geologist and financer o f the Brixham excava
tion, to jo in him there. Accom panied by the
geologist and numismatist Joh n Evans, Prest
wich made the jou rn ey to Abbeville where he
was soon followed by an entire com m ittee o f
the Geological Society o f London and by Lyell
himself. T h e English scholars contributed to the
international recognition of B ou ch er de
Perthes, even if Charles Darw in, after reading
the book, retained a m ore than sceptical atti
tude .49 O n 26 May 1859 Prestwich presented a
report to the Royal Society o f London which,
based on his experience in Great B ritain and
France, upheld that ‘flint implements were the
product o f the conception and work o f man’,
and that they were associated with numerous
D arw in ’s great w ork extinct animals .50 O n 26 Septem ber and 3 O cto b er o f that same
earned its author
year, a museum palaeontologist who had been at the Abbeville
m any caricatures.
inquiry, A lbert Gaudry, championed the value o f B ou ch er de
Perthes’s findings before the Academie des Sciences. For the latter
the year 1859 saw the ‘time o f recognition’, but for archaeology this
official recognition signified the learned world’s abandonm ent o f
the age-old denial o f the antiquity o f man. T h e same year saw the
publication o f Darw in’s On the Origin o f Species.
314
1 M o n tfau co n 1 7 1 9 ,V ,2 ,p . 194. n ot in agreem ent w ith Bu ckland o n the

2 Legrand d ’Aussy 1799, p. 3. date o f the flints, w h ich he attributed to a
3 Ibid., p. 56. post-diluvial age.
4 L am in g -E m p eraire 19 6 4 , pp. 106—14. 3 0 Lam in g-Em peraire 1 9 6 4 , pp. 1 4 4 - 6 ;
5 B e rc e 1 9 86, p. 53 6 . Grayson 1 9 8 3 , pp. 9 9 - 1 0 8 .
6 M ic h e le t 1 9 5 9 , p. 84. 31 Tournai 1 834.
7 M arsden 1 9 83, pp. 8 - 9 . 3 2 ‘U m fo rm itarian ism assumes the prin cip le
8 D aniel 1978, p. 31. that the past history o f the earth is
9 M arsden 1983, p. 18. u n ifo rm w ith th e present in term s o f the
10 C hippend ale 19 8 3 , p. 119, letter to physical laws governing the natural order,
C u n n in g to n o f 2 4 S ep tem b er 1 8 0 2 . th e physical processes o ccu rrin g bo th
11 C o lt H oare 1 8 1 0 - 1 2 , 1, p. 153. w ithin the earth and on its surface, and
12 See Piggott 1 9 7 6 , p. 138, and D an iel and the general scale and intensity o f those
R e n fre w 1 9 86, p. 30. processes. It asserts furth er that our only
13 G rayson 19 8 3 , p. 7. means o f interpretin g the history o f the
14 L am in g -E m p eraire 19 6 4 , p. 115; Grayson earth is to do so by analogy w ith events
19 8 3 , pp. 7 - 8 . and processes in the present.’ D ictionary
15 Grayson 1 9 8 3 , pp. 5 7 - 8 ; Frere 1 8 00, o f the H isto ry o f Ideas.
pp. 2 0 4 - 5 . 3 3 Stoczkow ski 1 9 9 3 . Stoczkow ski drew
16 G rayson 1 9 8 3 , pp. 8 7 - 9 , L am in g- attention to th e an ticipatory character
Em peraire 1 9 6 4 , p. 141. o f th e idea o f prehistory in Tournai.
17 Esper 1 7 74. 3 4 K lin d t-Jen sen 1 9 8 1 , p. 15.
18 C u v ier 1 8 0 1 , p. 2. 35 Ibid.
19 C u v ier 1 8 4 1 ,1, pp. 6 2 —3. 3 6 C ite d by R o d d e n 1 9 8 1 , pp. 5 8 - 9 .
2 0 K iihn 1 9 7 6 , p. 4 4 ; see also B ied erm an n 3 7 H erbst 1 848.
1 8 9 0 ,p. 32 0 . 3 8 Graslund 1 9 8 7 , p. 2 3 ;T h o m s e n 1 8 3 6 ,
21 See G o e th e ’s own version o f the pp. 3 2 and 58.
C u v ier—G eoffroy Sain t-H ilaire co n flict, 3 9 K lin dt-Jen sen 1 9 7 5 , p. 7 2 .
with his o p in io n on the story o f 4 0 Ibid., p. 73.
co n tem p o rary anatom y in G o e th e 1832. 41 B o u c h e r de Perthes 1 8 4 7 , 1, p. 3 6 , cited in
22 K iihn 19 7 6 , p. 4 4 ; see also B ied erm an n L am in g -E m p eraire 1 9 6 4 , p. 1 62.
1 8 9 0 , p. 3 2 0 . 4 2 G erhard 1 8 5 0 , p. 204.
2 3 G um m el 1938, p. 125. 43 Ibid.
2 4 G u m m el 1 9 38, p. 112. 4 4 Stark 188 0 , pp. 2 8 0 - 8 4 .
25 Lam in g-Em peraire 1 9 64, pp. 116—17. 45 M o m ig lia n o 1 9 8 3 , p. 2 8 3 .
2 6 M o n g ez 1 8 1 2 -1 7 . 4 6 W eickert 1 9 5 5 , p. 143.
27 L am in g -E m p eraire 1964, pp. 1 2 1 -2 ; 47 B o u c h e r de Perthes 1 8 4 7 , 1, p. 34.
Aufrere 1936. 48 Ibid., p. 5 4 7 , n o te 24.
2 8 Buckland 18 2 3 , pi. 69. 4 9 D arw in 1 8 8 7 , 3, pp. 1 5 - 1 6 : ‘T h e w hole
2 9 Grayson 1 9 83, pp. 7 5 - 6 . Grayson [B o u ch e r de Perthes’s b o ok ] was rubbish."
emphasises, however, that M acE n erv was 50 C o h e n -H u b lin 198 9 , p. 186.
315
C ongress o f the Forem ost A ntiquaries in R o m e . 1 7 2 8 . C aricature by the painter
and antiquary P ier L eon e G hczzi ( 1 6 7 4 -1 7 5 5 ) , o ne o f the m ost active scholars in R o m e
du ring the eighteenth century. In the foreground one can recognise B aron von Stosch,
am on g the m ost fam ous co llecto rs o f the tim e, sitting in an arm chair. B e h in d him ,
pen in hand, G hezzi takes notes.
316
CONCLUSION
THE T H R E E
C O N T R A D I C T I O N S
O F T H E
A N T I Q U A R I E S
M ankind has engaged with the

past without always being aware o f it; a past comprehended more as a
continuum than a rupture in the steady flow o f time. As far back in
time as we can go we find antiquaries comparing remains with texts,
monuments with their associated literature, mythological cycles with
landscapes. We cannot capture antiquarianism at its roots —archaiologia
at its birth — any more than we can observe the birth o f religion or
law, for despite all the ambitions o f cognitive archaeology, we do not
have access to the thoughts o f prehistoric people. We simply know
that to deny them any curiosity about the past is just as absurd as to
deny them a sense o f the divine, or the practice o f language. To
account for the human invention o f culture we still depend upon a
handful o f scenarios which have been only marginally enriched by
m odern prehistory . 1 Life in the caves w hich served as a refuge to
man, the building o f light shelters and the use o f worked stone as
tools and weapons, are all part o f a language com m on to antiquaries
near and far, from China to the West. W hen we happen upon the
notion o f fossils among the philosophers o f Ionia, or the principle o f
the stone—bronze—iron succession in ancient tradition, we are estab
lishing not so much the reality o f a G raeco-R om an prehistory as the
vulnerability o f our own representations o f evolution.
T h e science o f antiquities has had a chequered history. Despite the
differences which distinguished the various antiquarian theories from
one era or one region to the next, a relatively stable body o f ideas
31 7
was established. First, the antiquaries had to test their theses. Egypt
ian, Assyrian and Chinese scribes questioned the consistency o f their
sources, just as the Greeks did. T h e same question nagged at all those
who collected antiquities, deciphered inscriptions, and sooner or
later, dug the earth. Foundation texts contained much information
about the origin o f the arts and o f techniques. Some o f them seemed
to be confirmed when the first antiquaries compared them with the
objects discovered in the earth or preserved in the temples. Despite
the profound differences between the G raeco-R om an and Chinese
heritage, they had several things in com m on. Thus China became a
kind o f counterpoint to the ‘wisdom o f the Greeks’ - a different way
o f conceptualising origins which was at once similar and dissimilar.
Just when Lucretius resuscitated the idea (already an old one) o f the
three ages o f humanity, Chinese tradition produced the following
opinion, attributed to the philosopher Feng Fluzi:
In the time of X uanyuan, Shennong and H cxu , w eapons were m ade o f
stone, to cut trees and build houses, and they were buried with the dead
[ . . . ] . In the time of H u an gdi, w eapons were m ade o f ja d e , to cut trees,
build houses and dig the earth [ . . . ] and were buried with the dead. In the
tim e o f Yu, w eapon s w ere m ad e o f b ron ze to build canals / . . . ] an d
houses. In our times, w eapons are m ade o f iron.2
As part o f a process which is quite comprehensible given the C hi
nese context, jade was inserted between stone and bronze, but the
idea is the same as that o f Lucretius. T h e ages o f man could be
defined by technological stages which were subject to a development
from the simple to the complex. Behind text or tradition the anti
quary revealed objects which he could then classify and interpret,
making o f them a historical source; the remains o f the past were no
longer mere sem iophores, but instruments o f knowledge.
Stones, bronzes, vessels, tools or monuments — the scope o f anti
quarian curiosity knew no bounds. T h ese sem iop h ores had to be
classified and given a place within an intelligible system. T h e Greeks
believed the tripods o f Hephaestus had the power to move by them
selves. The ancient Chinese recounted fables about Ding bronze vessels
which could cook food on their own without fire, put themselves
away without being lifted and move about without being carried .3
T h e idea o f the supernatural was com m on to many antiquaries o f the
East and West. We have seen how, in seventeenth-century Europe,
intelligent people enquired after the means o f harvesting the vessels
which sprang spontaneously from the bowels o f the earth, or about
318
CONCLUSION - THE THREE CONTRADICTIONS OF T H E ANTIQUARIES
the role o f dwarves and giants in the building o f megaliths. The

notion o f ‘thunderbolts’ was com m on to East and West from ancient
times. Lapidaries and encyclopaedists alike ascribed them special
properties up until the eighteenth century. Yet here and there
enquiring minds such as M ercati and later Jussieu and Mahudel
recognised them as stone tools. At the same time (the beginning o f
the eighteenth century) the Chinese Emperor Kangxi explained:
T he form and substance o f thunderstones paries fro m place to place. T he
w andering M ongols use them instead o f copper or steel [ . . . ] . A romance
of the time o f the T ’ang says that there was atY u -m en -si a great tem ple
dedicated to thunder, and that the p eo p le of the land w ould offer various
m aterials to it in order to have these stones. T his fable is ridiculous, the
thunderstones are metals, stones and p ebbles which fire from the thunder
has m etam orphosed, melting them quickly and fusing different substances
irreversibly,4
W ithout abandoning the old theory o f the origin o f thunder-
stones, the emperor—antiquary recognised their cultural importance
as tools which preceded the use o f metals. In the same period the
Japanese historian, poet and statesman Arai Hakuseki (1657—1725)
believed that thunderstones in the shape o f arrowheads had been left
behind by non-Japanese human groups whose existence was m en
tioned in the ancient chronicles .5 M ankind’s ideas about the past do
not spring from some unlikely circulation o f theories, but from
unsystematic observations and inferences which are given expression
w hen societies are faced with putting into intellectual order the
vestiges o f their past. Thus antiquarian studies seem to have developed
in the same way in the Far East and in the West. This impression may
stem in part from rather random encounters w ith a variety o f
sources, but, without adopting too deterministic an approach to the
history o f ideas, the disturbing coincid en ces must be explained.
At the heart o f this m echanism for exploring time the antiquary
compares the text with the object. T h e presumed antiquities must
then be assigned their place within the natural or cultural order. It
follows that in widely differing circumstances, and given similar
assemblages, antiquaries may produce similar statements. A third
approach completes the strategy, in which local and universal history
are opposed. T he amateur antiquary seeks devotedly and patiently to
collect, classify and interpret objects as historical evidence. B u t o f
what kind o f history? The local history o f towns, or the history o f
dynasties, nations or empires — or universal history? In the West
319
scholars since the Middle Ages had to struggle to impose national

history upon a universal history itself divided between biblical and
G raeco-R om an sources. In China their work had to be written into
the history o f dynasties o f variable fortune. In a recent book Denis
Twitchett gives an example o f this effort to pass from the particular
to the general in the Chinese historiography o f the T ’ang period
(seventh to ninth centuries a d ):
T h e record began with the C ou rt D ia ries (C h ’i-ch ii-ch u ) an d the

A dm in istrative R ecord (Sh ih-ch en g ch i), the m aterial which ivas suc
cessively com piled into a D aily C a len d ar (Jih-li) fo r each year, then into
a V eritable R ecord (Shih-lu) fo r each reign, into a fu ll-scale N a tion al
H istory (Kuo shih) o f the reigning dynasty, and fin ally after the dynasty
had fa llen and had been replaced by its successor into the Standard H istory
(Cheng shih) o f its p e r io d .6
At any event it was necessary to distinguish between a prehistory
w hich could be universally applied, and a history dominated by
political figures. T h e w riting o f ancient history was thus directly
dependent upon the way in which the scholar dovetailed long-term
history (the time o f foundations and inventions) with short-term his
tory (the time o f politics, o f observable and verifiable facts). In the
West, recourse to the Varronian idea o f res divinae and res hum anae
becam e a practical means o f justifying the division o f labour. The
ordering o f things human was sufficient unto itself. T h e historian left
the business o f things divine to the theologians. This division did not
operate in China, but the collection and classification o f antiquities
were nevertheless useful in furnishing the emperor and scholars alike
with the mass o f historical inform ation necessary for the coherence
and understanding o f imperial institutions. That is why Chinese
scholars produced, well before their Western counterparts, the first
manuals o f antiquities, which owe their existence to the demands o f
court officials, connoisseurs and the curious. In China as in Greece
local and universal were united without recourse to the philosophical
contortions o f scholars in an effort to bring together the remotest
antiquity and the present. T h e most influential o f the Jesuit mission
aries in China, M atteo R ic c i (1552—1610), who certainly did not
lack a sense o f history, expressed surprise at the behaviour o f the
Chinese in this matter:
In this realm they have much interest, in an tiquities: they have neither
statues nor medals, but rather all kinds o f bron ze vessels which are highly
valued and which they wish to be distinguished by a particular corrosion.
320
CONCLUSION - THE THREE CONTRADICTIONS OH T H E ANTIQUARIES
W ithout that they are worth nothing. O ther an tique vessels o f pottery or
o f Ja p a n ese stone [ja d e ] are appreciated. B ut much more than all these
things they seek the paintings o f fam ous artists, w ithout colour, only in
in k ; or the writings of ancient authors on p ap er or m aterial, with their
seals to confirm that they are authentic.7
The interests o f the Chinese differed from those o f the European
antiquaries because their vision o f the past was based upon a different
value system, one in which continuity prevailed over discontinuity.
T h e Jesuit scholar was thus suggesting that for the Chinese, the radi
cal gulf between antiquity and the present day scarcely existed:
forms, traditions and institutions appeared immutable. This explains
the value placed upon those details which gave an object temporal
status: antiquities must justify their existence by means o f formal
traits which allow them to be assigned their proper place in time.
THE T H R E E T O O L S OF A R C H A E O L O G Y
Confronted with the immense and disparate knowledge o f the anti

quaries, archaeology founded itself upon a unitary model, and aimed
to affirm itself as a unified science which allowed the remains o f the
past to be organised into an ordered system by means o f verifiable
procedures o f collection and classification. T he scholars o f the second
half o f the nineteenth century were staggered by the discovery o f the
great antiquity o f man. Attracted by the progress made in the natural
sciences, they wished to lay the foundations o f a scientific archae
ology free from the burden o f antiquarian traditions. Typology freed
archaeology from the tutelage o f text; technology liberated it from
the nature/culture dilemma; and stratigraphy from the local/universal
paradox. Typology places the object in an identifiable time-frame and
renders it useful as historical evidence. A ttention to technological
features, by establishing the ‘natural’ and ‘cultural’ com ponents o f
each product, allows each object to be assigned its particular func
tion. Stratigraphy adds another dimension: the object was buried by
the action o f depositional phenom ena at the same time local and
universal. Every object and every m onument is destined to find its
place in a general process o f stratification which is linked to the his
tory o f the planet. These three principles were neither developed nor
received in the same way. From W orm to de M ortillet or Montelius,
via W inckelm ann and Gerhard, the concept o f ‘type’ in its different
321
senses (stylistic or classificatory) formed the basis o f the inevitable

descriptive analysis o f materials. W ithout typology there was no other
route but the aesthetic one. Oscar Montelius in Sweden, Augustus
Pitt-R ivers in Britain and Gabriel de M ortillet in France employed
an evolutionist typology which was greatly influenced by Darw in .8
T h e continuity o f their theories with the older propositions o f men
such as Aubrey and Caylus is striking. At the Brussels International
C onference o f 1872 de M ortillet proposed the replacem ent o f the
nom enclature for prehistory based on fauna w ith a typological
classification:
Follow ing an excellent m ethod used in geology , I have given each period
the name o f a typical locality which is well known and studied, only instead
o f saying C helles period , M oustiers p eriod , Solutre p eriod and L a
M adeleine period I have changed the nam e o f the locality into an adjective .y
D e M o rtillet’s work did not just involve the replacement o f a
palaeontological nomenclature with a topographical one. He consid
ered each prehistoric period as an assemblage o f identifiable and
definable types, and proceeded to establish a cultural chronology
based on stratigraphic observation. This was a decisive step forward
which gave prehistory a system o f classification that was both hom o
geneous and flexible. D e M ortillet’s three laws sum up precisely the
naturalist and evolutionist concept o f prehistory in the nineteenth
century. M ontelius, in what was to becom e the bible o f modern pre
history, came even closer to a formal typology:
T h e series may differ in their degree o f sensitivity. T h ey all have in
com m on, however, that each lin k in the chain differs only slightly from
the follow ing link. T h e sim ilarity oj two links close to each other may be
so great that an unaccustomed eye will fin d no difference. B u t the fir st and
the last type in the series are often so different from each other that it
seem s at first glance that the one has no relationship with the other.10
Caylus expressed the variation o f types using the metaphor o f
colours, while M ontelius employed the more evolutionist metaphor
o f the chain to characterise the relationship between types; however,
the com m on source o f inspiration is clear. From Caylus to Montelius
the typological method was defined as the display o f particular prop
erties: ‘It must be said, however, that in general the enlightened eye
[...] notices considerable differences where the generality see only a
perfect resem blance .’ 11 T h e natural history paradigm did not only
involve thinking o f types as species, but led to a consideration o f
objects as beings:
322
CONCLUSION - THE THREE CONTRADICTIONS OF T H E ANTIQUARIES
It is after all extraordinary that man with all his works has been su b
jec ted to the laws o f evolution, and rem ains subjected to them . Is hum an
liberty thus fa sh io n ed that we may create no fo r m to our liking? A re we
constrained, step by step, to pass from one fo r m to another, how ever sm all
the difference? D evelopm ent m ay be slow or fa st, but man is always con
strained in the creation o f new fo rm s to obey the sam e law o f evolution
which is valid for the rest o f n ature.12
W here Caylus discerned a principle, Montelius was quick to per
ceive a fundamental law w hich determ ined the development o f
types. Som e years previously Pitt-R ivers had affirmed the evolution
ary autonomy o f types in a more direct way than Montelius:
H u m an ideas, as represented by the various products o f hum an indus
try, are capable o f classification into genera, species, and varieties, in the
sam e m anner as the products o f the vegetable an d an im al kingdom s, and
in their developm ent from the hom ogeneous to the heterogeneous they obey
the sam e law s.13
T h e typologist from Stockholm and the English general with a
passion for typology are in perfect agreem ent .14 O ne attempts to
construct an analytical table o f European prehistory by means o f
com bining type-series, and the other seeks to trace human culture to
its very origins through the detailed analysis o f tools and their func
tions . 15 Admittedly there are slight differences to be detected
between P itt-R iv ers s principles o f classification and M ontelius’s
typological method. M ontelius’s typology is based upon the attrib
utes o f objects, their grouping and their convergence. P itt-R iv ers’s
takes more account o f their use, function and technique o f manufac
ture than o f the semiology o f form. B ut those differences apart, the
outline is the same: man was created not as the inventor o f civilisa
tion but as the unconscious instrument o f its foundation .16 Eventu
ally this exclusive attention to objects was bound to end in a
palaeontology o f types which neglected the social dimension o f pro
duction, by minimising the environmental variables to the advantage
o f formal analysis. In the name o f a prehistory which paid greater
respect to context, Sophus Muller, M ontelius’s Danish counterpart,
severely criticised certain o f his colleague’s deductions:
O ne must, however, bear in m ind that nothing can be com pared by and
f o r itself, but only w ith other things, archaeological m aterial, conditions o f
discovery, and above all, place o f discovery. To use conclusions derived fro m
pu re analogy as a m eans o f deducing the date and origin o f m aterial is bad
m ethodology except in rare cases.17
323
THE DISCOVERY OH T H E PAST
From then on the great archaeological debate was no longer the

opposition o f a philological model to one o f natural history, but a
consideration o f the application, extension and consequences o f the
natural history model. R ather than thinking o f the history o f archae
ology in terms o f a confrontation between these two models, one can
see two paths: one o f formal typology, which leads from de M ortillet
and Montelius to H enri Breuil for prehistory, Gero von Merhart for
protohistory, and Adolph Furtwiingler or Joh n Beazley for classical
archaeology; and a functionalist path w hich, from Pitt-R ivers and
Muller to Vere Gordon Childe and Andre Leroi-Gourhan, pays more
heed to technical processes, even to the social forms o f production. As
early as 1939 the visionary and underrated Finnish theoretician A.M.
Tallgren wrote that archaeology must cease to be a natural science
founded upon the study o f objects and forms, and becom e an eco
nomic, social and historical science .18 Contemporary archaeology has
never ceased to debate the contradiction between human and natural
sciences. In so doing it has detached itself from antiquarianism, but it
has a long way to go in order to becom e a social science complete in
itself. M odern prehistory, as part o f a necessary critical movement,
tends to deny the physiological and ecological determinisms in vogue
since the beginning o f the twentieth century, and discovers how close
these often were to ideas known since antiquity.19
1 Stoczkow ski 1993. 10 M on teliu s 1 9 0 3 , p. 17.

2 Yuan K ’an g.Y ueh cliueli shu, cited in 11 Caylus 1 7 5 2 ,V III.
C h an g 19 8 6 , pp. 4—5. 12 M o n teliu s 1 9 0 3 , p. 20.
3 M o T z u (4 7 8 -3 7 6 b c ), cited iti C hang 13 P itt-R iv e rs 1 8 7 4 , p. 18.
1 9 86, p. 96. 14 Sigaut 198 9 .
4 M e moires 17 7 9 , p. 86. 15 P itt-R iv ers 1 8 7 5 , p. 92.
5 B o u rd ier 1 9 9 3 , p. 86. 16 P itt-R iv ers 186 8 , p. 92.
6 T w itch ett 1 9 9 2 , p. 33. 17 M u ller 1885, cited in K lm dt-Jen sen 1975
7 Clunas 1 9 91, pp. 9 3 - 4 . p. 93.
8 K unst 1982. 18 Tallgren 193 6 .
9 M o rtille t 18 7 2 . See N . R ic h a r d ’s thesis 19 Stoczkow ski 1993.
o f 1 9 9 1 . pp. 3 2 8 —4 8 , on this question.
324
A P P E N D I C E S
A R C H A E O L O G I C A L A N T H O L O G Y
CH APTER ONE T h e p ro te ctio n o f antiquities in

the fo u rteen th cen tury
K haem w aset, re sto re r o f M em phis
A treatise on the conservation o f ancient
The discovery o f the statue o f Kawab,
buildings in Rom e, fourteenth century
second millennium B C
page 33 7
page 3 2 8
T h e holy discovery o f N abu-apla-iddina

The discovery o f the statue o f the god CH APTER T W O
Shamash, ninth century BC
page 3 2 9 C on tem p latio n o f the rem ains
An excursion to Lake Garda by
Prayer fo r the O b scu re M asters Felice Feliciano, fifteenth century
The excavation o f a tomb in China, page 3 3 8
fifth century AD
page 3 2 9 D e scrip tio n o f the city o f R o m e
Project for mapping Rom e, Leon
Hippias teach es ‘H isto ry ’
Battista Alberti, fifteenth century
‘Archaeologia’ according to Plato, page 3 3 9
sixth—fifth centuries BC
pa g e 3 3 1 T h e pow er o f the past
A letter from Pope Pius II concerning
Lucretius
the protection o f ancient buildings,
On the origins o f mankind, first century AD
fifteenth century
page 3 3 2
page 3 3 9
T h e p ersisten ce o f pagan cults

L e tte r from Raphael to Pope Leo X
A letter from the Emperor Julian,
A letter concerning the protection of the
fourth century AD
antiquities o f Rom e, sixteenth century
pa g e 3 3 3
page 3 4 0
T h e p ro te ctio n o f h eritage under

P reface by Francois R abelais
the E m p ero r Augustus
Rabelais provides a commentary on
A Senatorial decree, first century AD
the work o f Marliano, sixteenth century
pa g e 3 3 4
page 341
R e sp e ct fo r the past
T h e plans o f Bufalini
A text o f Cassiodorus, sixth century AD
A topographical survey o f Rom e, sixteenth
page 3 3 4
century
page 343
T h e m egaliths o f B rittan y in the year
1000
T h e V iterb o forg eries
A survey by land-surveyors and lawyers,
eleventh century A text by Antonio Agostino, sixteenth century
page 3 3 5 page 3 4 5
T h e search fo r treasure T h e b irth o f a tow n

The discovery o f the treasures o f Octavian, The origins o f Augsburg, by
twelfth century Sigismund Meisterlin, fifteenth century
page 3 3 6 pa g e 3 4 5
326
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANTHOLOGY
Pots that grow in the ground A natom y o f the earth

T h e d isco v e ry o f vases in P o la n d , S tu k e le y d e s c rib e s th e m e g a lith s o f
fifte e n th c e n tu r y G r e a t B r ita in , e ig h te e n th c e n tu ry
page 3 4 6 page 3 5 9
T h e thunderbolts
M i c h e l e M e r c a ti ex p la in s th e o r ig in o f
C H APTER LOUR
‘th u n d e r b o lts ’, s ix te e n th c e n tu r y
page 3 4 7 T h e long; history o f m ankind
T h e o r ig in o f th e p e o p lin g o f A m e r ic a by
R ubens w rites to P eiresc
Isaac d e L a p e y re re , s e v e n te e n th c e n tu r y
R u b e n s ’s c o m m e n ta r y o n P e ir e s c ’s tr ip o d , p a g e 3 61
s e v e n te e n th c e n tu r y
page 3 4 8 T h e ‘spy o f the Grand Seig n eu r’
A le t te r o n th e d isco v e ry o f th e to m b o f
C h ild e r ic , e ig h te e n th c e n tu r y
CH APTER THREE
p a g e 3 62
O n the childhood o f man
O n the origin o f art
B a c o n a n d P ascal, s e v e n te e n th c e n tu r y
W in c k e lm a n n and th e b ir th o f a rt h istory,
page 3 5 1
e ig h te e n th c e n tu r y
T h e taste fo r travel p a g e 3 63
J a c o b S p o n visits G r e e c e , s e v e n te e n th c e n tu ry
T h e excavations o f M artin Mushard
page 3 5 1
A m e th o d fo r e x c a v a tin g u rn s,
O n im m ortalityJ
p a g e 3 65
M e n c o n fr o n te d b y m e m o ry , b y
T h o m a s B r o w n e , s e v e n te e n th ce n tu ry ’
A le tte r from Voltaire
pa g e 3 5 3
O n th e o r ig in o f sh ells, e ig h te e n th c e n tu r y
A rchaeolog ical stratigraphy pag e 3 6 6
T h e stu d ies o f O l o f R u d b e c k ,
D id e ro t’s preface
se v e n te e n th c e n tu r y
In p ra ise o t N ic h o la s A n to in e B o u la n g e r ,
page 3 5 4
Treasure-hunting page 3 6 7
T h e d is co v e ry o f th e g rav e o t C h ild e r ic ,
Je ffe rs o n ’s excavations
se v e n te e n th c e n tu r y
T h e d isco v e ry o f a b a r ro w in V irg in ia ,
page 3 5 6
T h e C o ch cre l discovery p age 3 6 8
A d e s c rip tio n o f th e m e g a lith ic grav e

at C o c h e r e l, se v e n te e n th c e n tu r y
page 3 5 7 CH APTER FIVE
Barrow s T h e first inhabitants o f Gaul

A n d rea s A lb e r t R h o d e in te r p re ts th e vases T h e stra tig ra p h ic stu d ies o t B o u c h e r
ta k e n fro m th e b a rro w s , e ig h te e n th c e n tu ry d e P e rth e s , n in e te e n th c e n tu r y
page 3 5 8 page 3 7 1
327
C H A PTER ONE the sublime chamber and according to his taste, a

pon d which should be used to purify (the) w alk
A N T I Q U E AND ing (?) and for water sacrifices in the [ .. .J o f

Khafra so as to m ake him blessed with life.
MEDIEVAL ( Farouk G o m a a (eel.), Chacinwesc, Sohn Ramses II
mid Holier Priester von M emphis, Wi e s b a de n , 1973,
S O U R C E S
p. 68. )
Khaemwaset, restorer of Memphis T h e role o f Khaem w aset was not restricted

to that o f priest, since he had the task o f
m aintaining and restoring the lands o f
T H E S O N OF R A M E S E S II, K H A E M W A S E T
M em phis. H is restoration activities are
( 1 2 9 0 - 1 2 2 4 l i C ) , D I S C O V E R E D AT ME M P H I S
know n to us from num erous inscriptions.
A STATUE WI TH A D E D I C A T O R Y
T h e statue o f Kawab and the inscrip tion
I N S C R I P T I O N W H I C H HE A T T R I B U T E D T O
A S ON O F T H E P H A R A O H K H U F U
it bears attest to the historical know ledge
( C. 2 6 0 0 HC) , P R I N C E KAWAU. o f the p riests, cap ab le o f d e c ip h e rin g

and identifying an inscription m ore than a
Khaem w aset, kin g ’s son, sem -priest and the Statue o f Kawab.
greatest o f directors of craftsmen, was happy

because this statue of Kawab, once doom ed to m ille n n iu m old. But th e sto ry of
turn into nibble (?) in the /.../ o f his fath er Khaemw aset did not end in the thirteenth
K liufu, had survived intact (?)[... in order to century BC. Several dem otic manuscripts of
g iv e him (or som ething sim ilar)?) a place in the R o m an period recount the history o f a
the favour o f the gods and to unite him with high priest (Satni) nam ed Khaem w aset
the transfigured members of the K a-tem ple o f w ho was a m agician and discoverer o f
Rosetau, because he so loved those sublime a n c ien t b o o k s: the story o f the pious
ancient ones, who came before, and the excellence antiquary becam e the tale o f the enchanter
o f all their works — as a matter true a million Satni-K haem w aset (see G. M aspero, Les
times. This favour should be (consist of) every C o n tes p o p u la ire s de V E gypt an cien n e,
life, duration and happin ess on earth for Paris, 1882).
K haem w aset [the k in g ’s son, sem -priest and
greatest o f directors o f craftsmenf, after having
restored all the cults o f them (i.e. his ancestors) in
the temple and in the memory of the people, who
had forgotten them and after having built, near
328
The holy discovery of of the Euphrates, he washed his mouth, and he

took up his dwelling (there).
N abu - apl a -iddina
( L .W K in g (ed .), B abylon ian B ou n d ary Slones,
L o n d o n , 1 9 1 2 , pp. 1 2 1 —4.)
T H E K I N G OF B A B Y L O N N A B U - A P L A -
1DD1NA ( M I D - N I N T H C E N T U R Y B c ) For the M esopotam ian sovereign an anti
D I S C O V E R S AN A N C I K N T S T A T U E O F T H E quary’s know ledge was necessary for the
G O D S HAMAS H AN D R E S T O R E S T H E CU 1 T . re-establishm ent o f a cult and for proper
observance o f its rites. T h e proper perpetu
ation o f the ritual required an image o f the
Sham ash, the great lord, who dwells in E bab-
divinity w hich had to be based on an
bara, which is in Sippar, which during the trou
ancient m odel. T h e archaeological discov
bles and disorders in A k k a d the Sutu, the evil
ery o f the re lie f was thus an undoubted
foe, had overthrown, and they had destroyed the
sign o f the goodw ill o f the gods.
sculptured reliefs - his law was forgotten, his
fig u re and his insignia had disappeared, and
none beheld them. Sim m ash-S hipak [1 0 2 4 —
1 0 0 7 BC.}, king oj B abylon, sought for his Prayer for the Obscure Masters
figure, but he did not reveal him self to him. H is
image and his insignia he did not find, f .. .] he
T H E E X C A V A T I O N O F AN A N C I E N T T O M B ,
established his regular offerings [ ...f. During the
D I S C O V E R E D IN C H I N A IN T H E F I F T H
distress and fam ine under K ashshu-nadin-akhi
C E N T U R Y AD B Y B A R O N Z H U LI N AND
[1 0 0 6 -1 0 0 4 b c], the king, those regular offer
W R I T T E N UP B Y P R I N C E X I E HUI L I A N AT
ings were discontinued /.../. A t a later time T H E S T A R T O F T H E S I X T H C E N T U R Y AD.
N abu-aplu-iddina, the ki'tig of B abylon, /.../
who overthrew the evil foe, the Sutu, [under his
reignf Sham ash, the great lord, who for many W hile excavating a moat north o f the wall o f the
days with A k k a d had been angry and had Eastern Precinct, we had gone down to a depth
averted his neck, [ ...] had mercy and turned o f several yards when we found an ancient tomb.
again his countenance. A m odel o f his image, There had been no m arker o f a burial ground
fashioned in clay, his figure and his insignia, on above, and for the sarcophagus no tiles had been
the opposite side of the Euphrates, on the west used, only wood. In the sarcophagus were two
ern bank, were found, and N abu-nadiii-shum , coffins, exactly square, with no headpieces. A s for
the priest of Sippar, /.../ that model o f the image spirit vessels, we fo u n d twenty o f so different
to N abii-aplu-iddina, the king, his lord, showed, kinds, o f ceramic, bronze, and lacquer; most o f
and N abu-aplu-iddina, [ ...] who the fashioning these were of unusual form, and we were not able
of such an image had given him as a command to identify them all. There were also more than
and had entrusted to him, beheld that image and twenty human figures m ade o f wood, each o f
his countenance was glad and joyful teas his them three feet long. W hen the grave was first
spirit. To fash io n that image he directed his opened, we could see that these were all human
attention, and through the wisdom o f E a, with figures, but when we tapped them or p o ked them
the craft of N in-igi-nangar-bu, G ushkin-bana, with something, they disintegrated into dust
N in ku na, and N in -zadim with sumptuous gold under our hands. On top of the coffin were more
and bright lapis-lazuli the image o f Sham ash, than a hundred five-penn y-iveight’ H an coins.
the great lord, he carefully prepared. With the rite In the water were joints of sugarcane, along with
o f pu rification o f E a an d M ardu k before som e plum pits and melon seeds, all o f which
Sham ash in Ekarzagina, which is on the bank floated up, none o f them very rotten.
329
T he grave inscription had not survived, so we H ow is it they have been utterly lost?
ivere unable to ascertain the date or age o f the ‘A hundred-league wall m ade all at once’,
tomb. M y Lord commanded that those working Ten cubits high, even all around:
on the wall rebury them on the eastern hill. A nd We could not turn the wallworks away,
there, with pork and wine, we conducted a cere We could not bend the moat around.
mony f o r the dead. N ot knowing their names, T he cypress-core bindings had been destroyed,
w hether they were near to us or far, we gave T he chambers o f your tomb had fallen.
them the provisional title ‘T he Obscure Master Touching coffin-heads stirred brooding,
and M istress’. H andling tomb figures strengthened lament.
In the seventh year o f the Yung-chia Reign A s Ts 'ao Pa once extended his kindness
(a d 4 3 0 ) on the fourteenth day o f the ninth downward,
month, Baron C hu Lin, Instructional Director A s generosity once flowed from C h'en Ch'ung,
and Clerk o f the Censorate, charged as General So we reverence these bones by the precinct folds,
Administrator o f the Arsenal, General Registrar, A n d cover the skeletons by the w all’s bend.
M agistrate o f Lin-chang, prepared ceremonial In emulation o f ancient custom
pork and wine and respectfully presented them to Site another grave on your behalf.
the spirits o f the Obscure M aster and Mistress: W heels move you from the northern fosse
To the ‘long night’ at the foot o f eastern hills.
I gathered this laboring multitude, Jo in t burials are not o f high antiquity,
To build earthen ramparts was my charge, But have continued since the D u ke o f C h o u ’s
I went to the depths o f springs to m ake the day,
moat, A n d respecting that past principle,
M assed soil f o r the w all’s base. Again we inter your paired souls.
This single sarcophagus was opened, O f wine there are two jugs,
Two coffins lay therein. O f sacrificial beasts, the chosen pig.
H ods were set aside in sorrow, Your spirits appear in a blur,
Spades cast down with streaming tears. Tasting the bullock-shaped goblet.
Straw spirit-figures ivere decayed, (F ro m S. O w e n , R em em brances, the E x p erim en t
T he carts o f clay were broken, of the Past in C lassical C h in ese Literature, H arvard
T he banquet table had rotted, U n iv ersity Press, C a m b rid g e, M ass., 1 9 8 6 ,
pp. 3 9 - 4 0 .)
Its vessels for service fallen in.
O n the platter were still some plums, In C h in ese exp erien ce the discovery o f
In the crocks were still some pickles, ancient tom bs was a com m on occurrence.
A n d o f sugarcane, some joints were left, This text o f X ie H uilian’s, collated by X ia o
O f melons there remained some rind. Tong, son o f E m p eror W u o f Liang, is
Thinking back on you, good people, extraordinary because it brings together a
W hat was the age in which you lived? rational d escription o f the discovery w ith
H ow long were you in the resplendent body? a prayer fo r the u n k n o w n dead w h ich
A t what date did the soul sink away? prefigures in a certain way the Hydriotaphia
Was it ripe old age or early death? o f Thom as B ro w n e (see pp. 3 5 3 —4). O n e
Were you eminent or obscure? notes the extrem e precision o f the archaeo
T he tomb inscription has perished. logical description and the interest paid to
N o part o f your names comes down to us. the conditions o f preservation, n o t ju st for
W ho now are your descendants? o bjects but also fo r plant remains: the
A n d who were your forebears long ago? report o f the excavation attests a naturalist’s
Were your name and deeds fo u l or fair? attention to solid details.
330
Hippias teaches ‘History’ h ip p ia s H ow come, Socrates? L et m e hear them

once and I ’ll m em orize fifty names.
SOCRATES T h at’s right. I forgot you had the art
‘ A R C H A E O L O G Y ’ A C C O R D I N G T O PLATO.
o f memory. So I understand: the Spartans
enjoy you, predictably, because you know a lot
SOCRATES Then the Spartans are breaking the o f things, and they use you the way children
law by not giving you money and entrusting use old ladies, to tell stories for pleasure.
their sons to you. h i p p ia s Yes — and, good lord, actually about fine
h i p p ia s I grant that. I think you said your say activities, Socrates. Ju s t now I m ade a great
on my behalf, and there’s no need for me to impression there speaking about the activities
oppose it. a young man should take up. I have a speech
SOCRATES So we find the Spartans to be law about that 1 put together really finely, and I
breakers, and that on the most important put the words particularly well. M y setting
issue, though they appear to be most lawful. and the starting-point oj the speech are som e
So when they applaud you, really H ippias, thing like this: A fter Troy was taken, the tale
and enjoy your speech, what sort o f things is told that N eoptolem us asked Nestor what
have they heard? Surely they’re those things sort o f activities are fin e — the sort o f activities
you know most finely, things about stars and that would m ake som eone fam ous i f he
movements in the sky? adopted them w hile young. A fter that the
h i p p ia s N ot at all. T hey can’t stand the subject. speaker is Nestor, who teaches him a very
SOCRA TES Then do they enjoy hearing about great many very fin e customs. I displayed that
geometry? there and I expect to display it here the day
h ip p ia s No. M any of them can’t even, well, after tomorrow, in Pheidostratus’ schoolroom —
count. with m any other fin e things worth hearing.
SOCRATES Then they’re a long way from putting Eudicus, A pem an tu s’ son, invited me. But
up with your displays o f arithmetic. why d o n ’t you come too, and bring some more
h i p p ia s G ood god, yes. A long way. people, i f they are capable o f hearing and
SO C RA TES Well, do they like those things on judging what is said?
which you know how to m ake the sharpest (Hippias Major, 2 8 5 b —2 8 6 c , translated by Paul
distinctions o f anybody - the functions o f let W o o d ru ff, B a sil B la ck w e ll, O x fo rd , 1 9 8 2 .)
ters, syllables, rhythms, and harmonies?
T h is is the first te x t in w h ich the word
h i p p ia s H armonies and letters, indeed!
archaiologia appears in the sense o f know l
SOCRATES Well, ju st what is it they love to hear
edge and discourse on the past. It reveals
about from you and applaud? Tell me your
how, at the end o f the fifth and the start o f
self; I can’t figure it out.
the fourth century BC, historical genres had
h ip p ia s T he genealogies o f heroes and men,
achieved a special place in Greece.
Socrates, and the settlements (how cities were
founded in ancient times), and in a word all
ancient history — that’s what they most love
to hear about. So because i f them I have been
forced to learn up on all such things and to
study them thoroughly.
SOCRA'l'ES G ood lord, H ippias, you ’re lucky the
Spartans d o n ’t enjoy it when som eone lists
our archons fro m the time o f Solon. O ther
wise, you ’d have had a jo b learning them.
331
Lucretius But lived in the wild woods and the mountain

caves,
Stowing their dirt-rough limbs among the bushes
ON T H E O R I G I N S O F MA N K I N D .
W lm i driven to flee the w ind’s lash and the
downpour.
1 .T h e life o f the first men They could not. recognize the common good;
Yet the human race was hardier then by far - They knew no binding customs, used no laws.
N o wonder, f o r the earth was hard that formed Every man, wise in staying strong, surviving,
them — K ept for him self the spoils that fortune offered.
Built upon bigger and tougher bones within,
Bowels and flesh sewn tight with well-strapped
2. T he origins o f communal life
muscles,
H uts they m ade then, and fire, and skins for
N ot easily overcome by heat or cold
clothing,
O r by strange diet or bodily decay.
A n d a woman yielded to one man in wedlock ...
For many revolutions o f the sun
They led the life o f the pack, like beasts that roam. ... Com m on, to sec the offspring they had
There was no ruddy farmer to steady the plow ; m ade;
Unknown were iron tools to till the fields, T he human race began to mellow then.
H ow to plant out new shoots, or from tall trees Because o f fire their shivering forms no longer
Prune away the old branches with the hook. Could bear the cold beneath the covering sky;
W hat the sun and the showers bestowed, what Love sapped the strength o f the men, and
the earth created children tamed
O f its own doing, satisfied their hearts. Their parent’s proud wills with their pleasing
Often they met their bodies’ needs by feeding ways.
From the acorn-copious oak, and the berries you Then neighbours who wanted neither to harm
see each other
R ipen in winter, wild strawberries, purple-red, N or to be harmed, began to join in friendship,
R ose bigger and more plenteous from the earth. Setting aside as special the women and children,
M any other foods the flowering fresh earth bore, Signaling with their hands and stammering
Hard fare, but ample, f o r wretches born to die. speech
A n d springs and rivers called them to quench That the w eak must be pitied, as was just.
their thirst., H arm ony wasn’t always the result,
A s now from the mountains clear cascades of But the better part kept faithfu l to their vows;
water I f they had not, our race would have all
Draw from afar the thirsty animals. perished,
Those rovers found and dwelled in the sacred N ot kept its shoots alive unto this age.
groves
O f the Nymphs, wherever the rush o f a good
3. The discovery o f fir e
deep brook
Likew ise — in case you’re wondering to yourself-
Spilled over to wash the wet and slippery stones,
Lightning brought fire to earth for mortal men,
T he slippery stones, and trickled over the moss,
It was the first; all flam es have spread from there.
O r where streams sprung up bubbling from the
For we see many things d a zz le like lightning
fields.
They had no foundry skills, no use for fire; W hen the bolt, from the sky laces them with fire.
Then too when a well-branched tree sways in the
They didn’t know how to clothe themselves with
wind,
skins
332
A R C H A E O L O G 1C AL A N T H O L O G Y
Sawing back and forth, weighing over another that I once thought I ought to detest him above
tree's branches, all other depraved persons. B u t when I was
Its great force crushes and grinds out seeds of fire sum m oned to his headquarters by Coustantius
T hat sometimes flare up into heat and flame, of blessed m em ory I was travelling by this
W hile the stocks and branches scratch against route, and after rising at early dawn I came
each other. from Troas to Ilios about the m iddle o f the
O ne or the other could have given men fire. morning. Pegasius came to meet me, as I wished
A n d how to use fire to soften and cook food to explore the city, — this was my excuse for vis
They learned from the sun —fo r they saw fruits iting the temples, — and he was my guide and
in the fields show ed m e all the sights. So now let m e tell
G row mellow under hot rays beating down. you what, he did and said, and from it one may
(Lu cretius, O n the N ature o f Things, ed ited and

guess that he was not lacking in right senti
translated by A n to n y E s o le n ,Jo h n s H op k in s ments towards the gods.
U n iv ersity Press, B a ltim o re and L o n d o n , 1 9 9 5 .) Hector has a hero’s shrine there and his
bronze statue stands in a tiny little temple.
This text from the first h alf o f the first cen
O pposite this they have set up a figure o f the
tury BC is the best-know n passage from one
great Achilles in the unroofed court. I f you have
o f the ancient visualisations ot the origins
seen the spot you will certainly recognise my
o f man. C o u n te r to the tradition o f the
description o f it. You can learn from the guides
G olden Age, it presents a prim itive picture
the story that accounts for the fact that great
o f the history o f hum anity w h ich influ
Achilles was set up opposite to him and takes up
enced an entire tradition from the R en ais
the whole of the unroofed court. N ow I found
sance to our own tim es, and the ech o o f
that the altars were still alight, 1 might almost
w hich can be found in certain m odern rep
say still blazing, and that the statue o f Hector
resentations o f prehistory. T h e striking
had been annointed til! it shone. So I looked at
thing about this type o f narrative is the role
Pegasius and said: ‘W hat docs this mean? D o
given to nature and material forces in the
the people o f Ilios offer sacrifices?’ This was to
developm ent o f the prim itive history o f
test him cautiously to fin d out his own views. H e
humanity.
replied: ‘Is it not natural that they should wor
ship a brave man who was their own citizen, ju st
as we worship the martyrs?’ N ow the analogy
The persistence of pagan cults was far from sound; but. his point of view and
intentions were those of a man of culture, if you
consider the times in which we then lived.
FASCIN ATE D BY PAGANISM, T H E F U T U R E
Observe what followed. ‘Let us go,’ said he, ‘to
E M P E R O R JU LIA N VISITS TR OY .
the shrine of A thene o f Ilios.’ Thereupon with the
greatest eagerness he led me there and opened the
I should never have favoured Pegasius unhesi temple, and as though he were producing evi
tatingly i f I had not had clear proofs that even dence he show ed me all the statues in perfect
in former days, when he had the title of Bishop preservation, nor did he behave at all as those
o f the G alilaeans, he was wise enough to revere impious men do usually, I m ean when they
and honour the gods. This I do not report to m ake the sign on their impious foreheads, nor
you on hearsay from men whose words are did he hiss to himself as they do. For these two
always adapted to their personal dislikes and things are the quintessence of their theology, to
friendships, for much current gossip of this sort hiss at demons and m ake the sign of the cross on
about, him has reached me, and the gods know their foreheads.
333
THE D IS C O V ER Y OP T H E PAST
These are the two things that I promised to august precept, but also by his exam ple, so he
tell you. But a third occurs to me which I think I helps in the happiness o f the century by p re
must not fail to mention. T his sam e Pegasius serving the works o f private individuals as well
went with me to the temple o f Achilles as well as oj public monuments, and as all should
and showed me the tomb in good repair; yet I refrain from the most bloody o f activities, that
had been informed that this also had been pulled by the ruination o f houses and towns, gives in
to pieces by him. But he approached it with great peacetim e the appearance of war, it is decreed: i f
reverence; 1 saw this with my own eyes. A n d I anyone, f o r commercial reasons, should buy a
have heard from those who are now his enemies building with the aim that by pulling it down
that he also used to offer prayers to H elios and he should acquire more than he p a id for it, then
worship him in secret. he is to p a y to the public treasury double the
(7 h e Works o f the E m peror Ju lian , translated by price that he p a id f o r it and may nevertheless be
W ilm er Cave W right, Harvard University Press, brought before the Senate. A n d since selling
Cam bridge, Mass. and London, 1990.) should not be worse esteem ed than buying,
these vendors should also be p u n ished who
T h e personality o f Ju lian (3 3 2 -6 3 ), called
know ingly act wrongly against the S en a te’s
the Apostate because he tried to renew the
wish, and it is decreed that such sales be
pagan tradition o f the Em pire (he becam e
annulled. Furthermore, the Senate asserts that
Em peror in 3 6 0 ), is one o f the most fasci
it reserves its position as to those proprietors
nating in antiquity. This learned man, w ho
who have changed som e aspect o f their owner
had received a C hristian education, was fas
ship with the intention that it should not be
cinated by paganism w hich he saw as one
seen as a transaction (o f sale).
o f the backbones o f the Em pire. This letter
shows the degree to w hich fidelity to the (From T. M om m sen and O. Gradenwitz, F on tes Ju ris
R o m a n i , Freiburg, 1893.)
old cults was m aintained, despite the
proclam ation o f C h ristianity as the state T his senatorial decree proclaim ed in ad
relig io n in 3 1 2 . And w ith this there 4 4 —56 under the consulates o f Gnaius
rem ained a know ledge o f and attention to Hosidius G eta and Lucius Vagellus, on the
the m ost prestigious sites o f antiquity, tenth day o f the kalends o f O cto b er, well
w h ich were visited and, after a fashion, expressed the em peror’s c o n ce rn for the
maintained. p rotectio n o f heritage sites: it was n ot a
m atter o f archaeological anxiety but o f the
desire to prevent destruction o f the urban
The protection of heritage under centres by speculation.
the Emperor Augustus
Respect for the past

THE B R O N Z E TABLETS OF H ER CU L AN E U M
EX P R E S S C O N C E R N F O R THE P R O T E C T I O N
OF M O N U M E N T S WITHIN THE EMPI RE A B A R B A R I A N KI NG C O N C E R N S
D U R I N G T H E F I R S T C E N T U R Y AD. HIMSELF WI T H HE R I TA GE ,
A C C O R D I N G TO CASSI ODORUS.
Since the foresig h t o f the best o f princes has

enabled us to look as f a r as the roofs o f our city O ur palace having been built, as is known, by
and has considered the eternity o f all Italy, skilled architects, wise men ought to look after
which he looks after not only by his most it with care and prudence, f o r its wonderful
334
beauty, i f it is not kept in repair, will be spoilt having regard to c o n tin u ity w ith the
by the onset o f old age. In it are the delights o f an cien ts. T h is te x t c o lle c te d by C as
our power, the glorious fa c e o f the empire, the siodorus, on e o f the finest scholars o f the
laudatory witness o f the kingdom s; it, too, is p e rio d , strongly expresses the idea that
shown for the admiration o f ambassadors and th e grand eu r o f th e present reflects the
o f course any master is judged by the quality o f m ajesty o f the past, and thus respect for
his dwelling place. A n d so it is that the most an cien t m o n u m en ts was p art o f the
prudent m ind will fin d the greatest pleasure in a rc h ite ct’s profession.
being able sim ultaneously to enjoy the most
beautiful dwelling and let his spirit that is
fired by public cares be relaxed by the harm ony
The megaliths of Brittany in the
o f its fabric. It is said that it was the Cyclops
who first built vast structures in Sicily, corre
year 1000
sponding to the height oj their caverns, after
Polyphem us had been pitiably deprived o f his S U R V E Y O R S A N D L A W Y E R S S ET
one eye by Ulysses in the m ountain caverns. T E R R I T O R I A L B O U N D A R I E S IN B R I T T A N Y
Thence, it is said, the science o f architecture AND R E G A R D T H E M E G A L I T H S AS
was brought to Italy, so that posterity, in its M E R E HEAP S O F S T O N E S .
desire to em ulate the ancients might keep for

its use w hat h a d been discovered by such
R udalt, son o f Orscand the Great, B ishop o f
fou n ders. A n d so it is that we have decided
Vannes, gave to Saint-C ado, in perpetuity with
that your em inence ought to un dertake the
all its revenues, a village within sight o f the sea,
charge o f our palace, from the tim e o f this
where the river E tel flows, nam ely into the
decree, both m aintaining in their pristine state
overflow, which runs into the aforesaid river
the old m onum ents and m aking new ones that
E tel, between this village and that called M el-
are sim ilar to the old; for ju st as a fair body is
lionuc. H a l f o f the marsh also belongs to Saint-
appropriately dressed in clothes o f a single
C ado /.../
colour, so the visual effect o f a palace ought to
A t the f a r side o f the marsh a ditch goes up
be felt equally in each o f its constituent parts.
across M ont H aelgoret and proceeds practically
To do this, you will acquire the requisite ability
straight eastwards; just before reaching a p ile o f
by assiduous reading o f the g eom eter E uclid
stones, it curves gently at three o ’clock and
and you will in your m in d’s eye construct his
imm ediately curves back again almost as far as
schem es set out in such adm irable variety, so
the limits o f the said village, towards a fallen
that when the need arises you will have abun
stone, in a limestone area; shortly afterwards it
dant know ledge at your fingertips. Archim edes,
curves in again to the left up to a little pond,
too, that most subtle o f minds, and M etrobius,
which it leaves to its right to continue as far as
too, should always be your com panions so that
the junction o f two water-meadows; after leav
you can give o f your best for new schemes, you
ing the w ater-m eadow which goes down to the
who will then be learned in the books o f the
well, it follows, at three o ’clock, the other water-
ancients.
meadow, together with a ditch, until it reaches
(From Cassiodorus, Variac, M onum ents Germ anise the place where three ditches jo in ; the Saint-
Historiae, X II, lib.V II, Berlin, 1894, p. 204.)
C ad o ditch then runs at nine o ’clock and
T h e o d o r ic , k in g o f the O stro g o th s (a d crosses rugged terrain until it reaches a water-
4 9 3 —5 2 6 ), charged his representative to meadow. T hen the ditch runs straight to the sea,
supervise the re sto ratio n o f his palace across the marsh.
335
A nother charter con cern in g Saint-C ad o end, his desires fell on treasures, formerly con
cealed by the pagans and which he discovered
T h e aforesaid Orscand, after the death o f his
by necromancy, sim ply clearing away what cov
father R udalt, granted to S ain t-C ado a quarter
ered them.
o f the b ourg des R o m ain s, ivith a quarter o f
its gardens, as well as a quarter o f Kerprat.
H O W G E R B E R T D IS C O V E R E D THE TREASURES
H ere are the limits o f this land: from the stand
OT OCTAVIAN
ing stone situated on the road which leads from
T here was a statue in the C am pu s M artins
the abbey to Saint-G erm ain, it goes up to the
near R om e, I know not w hether o f bronze or
m eadow ; it then follow s the meadow, along
iron, having the forefinger o f the right, hand
with a ditch, as far as the bou rg. From the
extended, and on the head was the inscription
bourg the ditch goes south, and, before reach
‘S trike h er e’. In the past., men h a d battered
ing the C hauve well, the boundary follows the
the harm less statue with m any axe-blow s,
ditch and the road which runs from the abbey
supposing that the inscription m eant that they
to a very tall standing stone, which is situated
might find a treasure there. But Gerbert showed
on the road where the boundary started, as
their error by solving the problem in a very
already stated.
different m anner: noting where the shadow of
(V. M ortet, R ecu eil tie te x t a relalijs a I ’histoire de
the finger f e l l at midday, when the sun is at its
I’architecture et a la condition des architectcs en France au
height, he fixed a post there, and when night
M oyen A ge, A . Picard, Paris, 1911, pp. 5 3 -5 .)
came, he went there, accom panied only by a
G iv en the requ irem en ts o f ju rid ic a l acts servant carrying a lantern. T he earth opened by
o f this type, land -su rveyors and lawyers means of his accustomed arts and revealed an
w ere very aware o f all the ch aracteristics entrance wide enough to enter. T hey saw before
o f the g rou n d and revealed th e p ro m i them a vast palace, with golden walls, golden
n e n t features o f the h isto ric landscape. roofs, everything o f gold: golden soldiers appar
T h e vocabu lary is descriptive and makes ently playing with golden dice; a king o f the
no allusion to the giants o r m agicians sam e m etal, reclining with his queen; delicacies
w ho, acco rd in g to trad itio n , had erected set before them, and servants standing by; and
the m on um en ts. vessels of great weight and value, o f an art that
outshone nature. In the inm ost part of the
dwelling a carbuncle of the highest quality
The search for treasure though of small size, dispelled the darkness o f
night. In the opposite corner stood a boy, hold
ing a bow, bent and with its arrow pointed. But
IN T HE T W E L F T H C E N T U R Y , WI1. I.IAM
while the precious art o f everything ravished the
OF M A L ME S B U R Y REL ATES HOW
spectators’ eyes, there was nothing that could be
GERBERT D ’ A U R I L L A C , P OPE IN
THE Y EA R 1000, D IS CO VE R ED
touched, even though it could be seen: for
T H E T R E A S U R E OF OCT AVIAN. imm ediately as one stretched out his hand, all
these images seem ed to rush forward and assail
such presumption. H eld back by fear, Gerbert
Otto, succeeding his father to the em pire of suppressed his inclination, but his servant could
Italy, m ade G erbert archbishop of R avenn a not refrain from seizing a knife o f marvellous
and, a little later, the R om an pontiff. O n the workm anship which he saw on a table; he no
instigation o f the D evil, G erbert pu shed his doubt thought that in the m idst o f so much
luck in such a way that he never left anything booty, so sm all a theft might be undetected. But
unfinished, once he had thought of it. In the the images all started up with a clamour, and
336
the boy let fly with his arrow at the carbuncle The protection of antiquities in the
and plu n ged them into darkness; an d i f the
fourteenth century
servant had not, at his m aster’s word, quickly
thrown back the knife, they would both have
TREAT ISE ON THE CONSERVATION
p a id dearly. A n d thus with their boundless
OF ANCI ENT BUILDI NGS IN R OME .
greed unsatiated, they departed, the lantern
guiding their steps.
(W illiam o f Malmesbury, D e G estis Regutn

So that the city might not be disfigured by its
A nglorum , II, 169, ed .W Stubbs, London, 1887, ruins, and that the ancient buildings might bear
pp. 1 9 6 -7 .) public witness to the grace o f our city, we forbid
any man to destroy or to have destroyed any
W illiam o f Malmesbury, an English m onk
ancient building within the walls o f Rom e, on
o f the twelfth century, was not an admirer
pain o f a fin e o f one hundred livres de Provins,
o f G erb ert, son o f farm ers from A urillac
o f which h a lf is for the Treasury and the other
w ho becam e Pope in R o m e from 9 9 9 to
half for the person who brought the charge. Fur
1003 u n d er the nam e o f Sylv ester II.
ther, it lies with the Senator to pursue such
G erbert, one o f the great minds o f his time,
enquiries, and neither he nor any other may give
had studied at V ich in Catalonia, then close
permission contrary to these present dispositions;
to th e b o rd e r w ith th e C a lip h a te o f
if he gives it, it carries a fine o f one hundred gold
C o rd o b a. H e knew law as well as m athe
florins, payable to the treasury, and any perm is
m atics and had finished his studies in
sion given has no validity.
R o m e . Involved w ith the dramatic political
and dynastic conflicts o f his tim e, he had (R om an statutes o f 1363, from R odocanachi, L es
m onum ents de R o m e apres la chute de V Empire,
confirm ed enem ies w ho created the legend
Hachette, Paris, 1914, pp. 6 2 -3 .)
o f th e m a g ic ia n P o p e in th e tw e lfth
cen tury. O n e o f the favourite them es o f In nine centuries, since the emperors o f the
these stories is natu rally the search fo r Later E m pire, the problem o f the p ro tec
treasure: everything described here is in the tion o f the m onum ents o f R o m e had
order o f marvels, the fantastic and the hardly changed, except that the fourteenth -
strange, ju st as in the adventures o f the century city was m u ch poorer than the
A bbot Lupicinus (see pp. 8 8 -9 ). Imperial city.
33 7
THE DISCOVERY OF THE PAST
CHAPTER TWO noble foliage, and sailed about on the L a k e o f

G arda, that liquid fie ld o f N eptune, w hile the
TH E E U R O P E OF E m peror Sam uele p lay ed all the time on the

lute and sang thereto.
THE A N T I Q U A R I E S Lastly, when we had trium phantly crossed
the lake, we reached the safe harbour and dis
Contemplation of the remains em barked. A t that very place we entered the
church o f the H oly Virgin in G arda, where we
sang exultant hymns of praise to the supreme
THE A RC HA EOL OG IC AL JUB ILATI O
Thunderer and expressed our deepest reverence
O F F E L I C E F E L I C I A NO .
for his sublim e M other, above all because he
had enlightened our
O n 2 4 Septem ber 1 4 6 4 we started [from hearts by uniting us
Toscolano[ in order to enjoy ourselves, under and had led our -A
,id»f * p-wnrv*. m -fiu u t.i
the suprem e com m and o f the merry Sir minds to visit such
ArW nmjJ mw Iim J
Sam uele da Tradate, w hile the worthy g en tle im portant sites and IM/ML- <urm H l «
m en A n drea M antegna and G iovan ni to study them , and

Antenoreo [Marcanova] acted as consuls, and 1, because he had
F elice F elician o, as p ro x y for the success o f allow ed us to behold
the undertaking. A noble band o f participants with such enthusiasm
follow ed us through the dark groves o f laurel. such worthy and var
C row ned with myrtle, evergreen ivy and other ious and edifying
foliage, Sam uele strode before us. A n d when we things and SO m any Extract from Fclice
entered the old chapel o f Saint D om inic, we ancient m onum ents. Feliciano’s manuscript,
discovered a very im portant inscription o f the A n d because he had flfteenth century-

Em peror M arcus A ntoninus Pius Germ anicus vouchsafed us such a
Sarmaticus. T hen we betook ourselves to the fav o u rab le day rich with flowers, with a fa ir
church o f the Protomartyr, which is not far passage and a safe harbour, and because he had
fro m the said chapel, and fo u n d in the atrium allow ed us to achieve our g o a l safe and sound
another fin e inscription o f the divine Antoninus and above all to see such wonders o f antiquity.
Pius, the grandson o f the divine H adrian, who To see such things, every right-thinking man
had once lived in this neighbourhood. W hen should betake h im self at once to travel.
we betook ourselves thence to the church o f the (Felice Feliciano, A lp h ab etu m R o m a n u m , ed.
fin es t P ontifex, we discovered quite close to it a Giovanni Mardersteig, Editiones O flicinae B od oni,
Verona, 1960.)
very im portant inscription o f the E m peror
Marcus A urelius Claudius. A ll these we copied O n 2 3 S ep tem b er 1 4 6 4 the fo u r friends
in the books we had brought with us. I will w ho em barked on an excu rsio n to Lake
not om it one thing, w hich is worthy to be Garda together em bodied the spirit o f the
m en tion ed: w e discovered a shrin e o f the Italian R en aissan ce. A ndrea M an tegn a as
quiver-bearing D ian a and other nymphs. For artist, F elice F elician o as epigrap her and
m any reasons we concluded that it could not he illustrator, G iovanni (A nteno reo ) M a r
anything else. canova and, the least kn ow n, Sam uel de
A fter we had observed all these things, we Tradate as co lle cto rs and antiquaries.
em barked in a large boat, which was adorned T h ese m en, amateurs o f epigraphy to the
with tapestries and all kinds o f things and in p o in t o f enthusing over w hat are today
which we scattered laurel leaves and other kn ow n to be patent forg eries, w ere also
338
admirers, readers and successors o f C yriac B raccio lin i and C yriac o f A ncona. It was at
o f A ncon a, w hose biograph y is in c o rp o the instigation o f the group o f learned
rated in to one o f the three m anuscripts m en from this circle that he drew up in
w h ich F elician o had com posed fo r his 1 4 3 2 -4 a cartographic p ro je ct for the
three com panions. m onum ents o f R o m e . T h e m ethod w hich
he displays in this passage form s the very
first original d ocum ent on the use o f te ch
niques o f archaeological survey in the
Description of the city of Rome
R enaissance. Sadly, we do not kn ow
w h eth er A lberti was able to execu te his
LE ON BATTISTA AL B E RT I , plan and, i f he did, this plan has not com e
C A R T O G R A P H E R OF R O M E . down to us. T h e techniques w h ich he pre
sents w ere to serve, how ever, as the basis
for m ost o f the proper topographic surveys
T he course and alignments oj the walls o f the
o f the city.
city o f R om e, o f the river, of the streets, and also
the sites and positionings o j the temples, public
buildings and gates and trophies, the extents o f
the hills, and even the area roofed for habitation, The power of the past
all o f this, to the best of our present knowledge, I
have depicted in great detail with my m athe IN 1 4 6 2 P O P E P I US II R E A F F I R M E D T H E
matical instruments: I have devised these so that LAW ON T H E A N T I Q U I T I E S OF R O M E .
anyone, even i f endow ed with tittle talent, can LE TT ER TO PREVENT THE DES TRUCTION
draw beautifully and with great ease on w hat OF A N C I E N T B U I L D I N G S I N T H E C I T Y
ever size of su face is desired. I have been per AND I T S E N V I R O N S .
suaded to do this by learned friends, whose

studies I have decided to assist.
PIUS, BISHOP, S I S i m S T O F THE SERVANTS OF
From all o f this I have gathered the follow
GOD, IN PERPETUAL MEMORY OT THE
ing: no traces whatsoever o f the old walls are to
M ATTER.
be seen: also very few roads survive intact: then,
Since we desire that our M other city remain in
no gate is further than one hundred and forty-
its dignity and splendour, we need to show alt
six cubits from the centre o f the city, that is from
vigilant care that the basilicas and churches o f
the Capitol, and the circuit of the walls when
the city and its holy and sacred places, in which
reconstructed does not exceed seventy five
are kept many relics of the saints, be m aintained
stades. This can be seen both from the real
and preserved in their splendid buildings, but
dimensions o f the various structures and from
also that the antique and early buildings and
the drawing itself.
their relics remain for future generations, for
(R.V alentini and G. Zucchetti, C odiee topograftco
these buildings are an ornament to our city and
della cittd di R o m a , R o m e, 1953, IV, p. 212.)
give it its greatest dignity while they preserve in
Leon Battista A lberti was one o f the uni m onumental form the ancient virtues that per
versal spirits o f the fifteenth century, petuate its glory. A n d, furtherm ore, it is to be
attracted as m uch to painting and sctilpture particularly borne in mind that these buildings
as to architecture, and at the same tim e a and remains o f buildings allow the fragility o f
philosopher and a m athem atician. A n asso human works to be better appreciated; and that
ciate o f the R o m a n curia, he was the c o n they should not bc mocked, for these buildings,
tem porary of Flavio B io n d o , Poggio with which our ancestors thought they rivalled
339
THE D IS C O V ER Y OF T H E P A S T
eternity by their great pow er and enormous cost, P icco lom in i depended on the strength and
are now seen to be ruined and even destroyed by valour o f the Germ ans according to Taci
the effect o f age and other avatars. For these and tus. This learned man well expressed in this
other reasons /".../ we fo llo w certain o f our pre bull the w ish o f the papacy to subscribe to
decessors, Pontiffs o f the Rom ans, o f happy the patrim on ial trad ition o f the R o m a n
memory, who expressly forbad the demolition or emperors, but he relied on a m ore histori
destruction o f these buildings f . . . j and thus, cal co n ce p t o f the evolution o f the city.
under pain o f excommunication and o f financial T h e rep etitio n o f this kind o f regulation
penalties expressed in this statute, which those attests less to its efficien cy in the p ro tec
who contravene it may incur forthwith, by our tio n o f antiquities than to the perm anent
aforesaid authority and capacity we form ally nature o f d estru ction: the eastern c o lo n
forbid all and singular, ecclesiastical as well as nade o f the p o rtico o f O ctavius was
secular, o f whatever eminence, dignity rank, order destroyed by Pius II him self for use as the
or condition, even i f o f Pontifical eminence or o f Vatican builders-yard.
any other ecclesiastical or worldly dignity, to dare
to demolish, destroy, reduce, break down or use as
i f a quarry, by any means, directly or indirectly,
publicly or secretly, any ancient public building or
Letter from Raphael to Pope Leo X
the remains o f any public building above ground
in the said C ity or its district, even if on private ON T H E N E E D T O P R O T E C T T H E
property in the countryside or in a town. A n d i f A N T I Q U I T I E S OF R O M E AN D T O
anyone shall dare to act against this prohibition, C R E A T E A PLAN O F T H E CI T Y .
we grant to our dear sons the keepers for the time

being o f the chamber o f the said City, recently
TO PO PE L E O X
established, w ho shall m ake search by their
M any are those, most holy father, who taking
officials, with full and free authority and capacity
the m easure o f mighty things with their own
to imprison and seize and confiscate the animals,
fe e b le judgem ent, w hen they write about the
tools and other goods o f any artificers or labourers
deeds o f the R om ans, or the m arvellous con
detected in the work o f demolition or destruction,
struction, w ealth, decoration, and architectural
as well as constraining those in whose name they
grandeur o f the city o f R om e, consider them
work to pay the full fine.
things o f fable rather than reality. B ut to me it
(J.B . Fcn zonio, A n n o la tio n e s in S ta tu ta s ir e has always been and will always be otherwise.
J u s M u n icip a lae R o m a n a e U rbis R o m e,
Since, pon derin g the spirit o f those ancient
1636, p. 667.)
souls, the traces o f which can still be seen today
Aeneas Silvius (1 4 0 5 -6 4 ) becam e pope in in the ruins o f R om e, I do not think it beyond
1458 under the nam e o f Pius II. It was he reason to believe that m any o f those things
w h o revealed to the G erm ans the redis which to us seem im possible, were to them
covery o f T acitu s’ te x t on G erm an ia by most easy. Therefore, as I have been very inter
Italian scholars. In 1 4 5 4 , after the fall o f ested in the study o f such antiquities as these,
C on stantinop le, he delivered a famous and having lavished no little effort in looking
speech before the assembly o f G erm an for them and meticulously recording them, and
princes at Frankfurt, calling them to form continuously reading g o o d authorities and
a league against the Turks. comparing the m onum ents with their accounts,
W h ere M eh m et II, follow ing K rito b o u - I think I have m an aged to obtain a certain
los o f Imbros (see p. 115), invoked H om er, know ledge o f that ancient architecture. T his
340
fam iliarity with som ething so wondrous gives referred to. O n ly the first part o f this letter
m e very great pleasure, yet also very great pain to Pope L eo X , dating to 1 5 1 9 , is repro
in seeing in effect the corpse o f this revered and duced here. T h e second part deals w ith
noble city, once mistress o f the world, so horri survey m ethods accord ing to techniques
bly torn /.../. close to those o f A lberti (see p. 33 9 ). N o n e
H ow m any popes, H oly Father, who held o f the surveys that R ap h ael would have
the sam e office as Your H oliness, but did not made have survived.
possess the sam e wisdom nor the sam e strength
nor magnanimity, how m any o f these Pontiffs
have allow ed the ruin and dism em bering o f
ancient temples, statues, arches and other build Preface by Francois Rabelais
ings, the pride o f their ancestors. H ow many,
just to grub up p o z z o la n a , have caused fou n I N T E R E S T E D IN R O M A N A N T I Q U I T I E S ,
dations to be dug away, so that soon after the R A B E L A I S P R E F A C E D AN D ‘ C O R R E C T E D ’
buildings come crushing to the ground? H ow T H E TOPOGRA PHIE DE LA VILLK
much lim e has been m ade from statues and D E ROME B Y M A R L I A N O ,
other ancient decorations? I would be so bold P U B L I S H E D IN L YONS I N 1 5 3 4 .
as to say that all o f this new R om e, which we

see now, how ever great it m ay be, how ever
Francois Rabelais, physician, greets the most
beautiful, how ever em bellished with palaces,
illustrious and learned nobleman Je a n du Bellay,
churches and other buildings, all o f this is built
Bishop o f Paris and counsellor to the King in the
with mortar m ade from ancient marbles. W ith
most holy confession
not a little em otion I am reminded how, in the
/.../. M y dearest wish, from the moment that
short time I have been in R om e, not yet twelve
I knew anything of belles-lettres, was to be able
years, m any beautiful things have been
to travel in Italy and to visit Rom e, the capital o f
destroyed, such as the P yram id ivhich stood in
the world; in your extraordinary bounty you
Via A lex an d rin a, the arch which was at the
have fulfilled that wish and you have crowned it
entrance to the B aths o f D iocletan, and the
in permitting me not only to visit Italy (which
Temple o f Ceres on the Via Sacra, p art o f the
ivas already enough in itself), but to visit it with
Forum Transitorium, which a few days ago was
you, the most learned and cultured man who
burned and destroyed, its m arbles m ade into
ever saw day (and I have not yet fully measured
lime, most of the basilica o f the forum ruined
the worth o f that) /.../.
j . . . J in addition so m any columns broken and
Long before we were in R om e, in my
split in two, so m any architraves and fine
thoughts and reflections I formed a certain idea o f
friezes shattered, that it has been the sham e of
the things I desired which drew me to Italy. I
our age to have perm itted it, and o f which it
had first planned to meet the learned men who
could gen uinely be said that even H an n ibal
would conduct debates in the places on our itin
and others like him could not have done worse.
erary, and to converse with them in a fam iliar
(V. Golzio, R affaello nei documenti, nelle testim on ialize manner concerning some thorny questions which
dei contem porauci e nella letteratura del suo secolo,
have been worrying me f o r a long time. Then I
Vatican City, 1936, pp. 7 8 -9 2 .)
resolved to observe (since this was within the
T h e text published here is that o f M un ich province o f my art) certain plants, certain animals
A , w ith the principal variations from ver and certain medicines, said to be rare in G aul but
sion B. For certain m odifications, the text widespread in these parts. Finally, I planned to
established by V. W anscher has been paint a picture o f the city, with my writer’s pen,
341
Map of R o m e made by Bartolom eo Marliano longer than you thought in order to do this, and
in 1534.
even though, in order to obtain som e sort o f
but also until the artist’s brush, so that there product from my studies, I had undertaken a
would be nothing which I could not find in my topographical description o f the city along with
notes once I was back among my compatriots, To Nicolas Leroy and C laude Chappuis, two most
this end, I had taken with m e a selection o f honourable young people of your retinue, p a s
observations taken from various authors in both sionate about antiquities - there was Marliano,
languages. I tvas fairly successful in the first of beginning to unite his book for you. The writing
these three projects, though less than I had o f the book was certainly a relief to me, such
hoped. As for the plants and animals, there are relief as Ju n o Litcina brings to women in difficult
none in Italy which we had not already observed childbirth. I had conceived the sam e child as
and described. We only saw a plane-tree, at the Marliano, but its birth was tormenting my spirit
lake o f D iano Aricino. A s far as the last project is and my heart itself. Even though the subject did
concerned, I brought it off with such z ea l that no not call for arduous research, it did not however
one, I think, knows his house better than I know seem easy to present an irregular and solid mass
H om e and all its quarters. A n d you yourself according to a clear, ordered and well-constructed
what leisure was left to you by this absorbing plan. Inspired by Thales of Miletus, with the aid
and time-consuming embassy you devoted will o f a sundial I divided the city into quarters
ingly to touring the monuments of the city. You according to a circle split from east to west and
were not content to see the visible monuments, then from north to south, and I described it thus.
you were also anxious about those yet to be Marliano, on the other hand, chose to begin his
excavated, having bought to this end quite a fine plan with the highest points. Far be it from me to
vineyard. Even though we had to stay there criticise this a p p ro a ch ; on the contrary, I
342
congratulate him fo r being first to carry out to A lberti and R ap h ael, must be under
what I was struggling to do. A lone, he has given stood as a discreet criticism . R a b e la is’s
us far more than we could expect from any o f our interest in the antiquities o f Rom e is
contemporaries, however learned. In my opinion attested by another jo u rn e y in 1548 in the
he has solved the problem so well, and dealt so com pany o f the cardinal and the geogra
well with the subject, that I cannot deny that I pher Andre Thevet, w ho refers to it in his
m yself owe just as much as all those who study Cosmographie universelle published in Paris in
the liberal arts owe him together. It is ju st a pity 1 575 (C o o p e r 1 9 7 7 ). R ab elais was also
that, called away from R om e by the ringing voice interested in m egaliths - he attributed to
o f your prince and your country, you had to leave Pantagruel the con stru ctio n o f the pierre
before his book was fin ished. I did however m ake levee on the outskirts o f Poitiers.
sure o f its despatch to Lyons (the seat o f my
studies) immediately it was published. This urn
done thanks to the good offices and willingness o f The plans of Bufalini
Je a n Servin, a very industrious man; but, I do
not know how, the book was sent without a
L E O N A R D O B U F A L I N I P R E S E N T S HIS
dedication. To avoid its incomplete and, so to T O P O G R A P H I C SURVEY OF R OM E,
speak, headless appearance, it seem ed fitting to MA D E I N 1 5 5 1 .
place it under the auspices o f your illustrious
name. In your great benevolence, you will receive
all favourably and extend to us (which you do TO THE READER
already) your affection. Salutations. Lyons, the W hoever you are, Leonardo B ufalini o f Friuli
eve o f the kalends o f September, 1534. asks you not to ju d g e harshly what he puts
before you, which he esteems to be o f the most
(B. Marliano, Topogm phia an tiqu ae R o m a c tibri sep ta n ,
ed. Rabelais, Lyons, S. Gryfius, 1534.)
beautiful o f all things - that is, R om e and this
representation o f it. For he would not deem that
R ab elais’s interest in R o m a n antiquities is he had done enough f o r you by putting before
well know n; R ich ard C o o p e r has even dis your eyes this resuscitation o f it which is lived in
covered the authorisation fo r export today, i f he had not also added to it, at the cost o f
accorded by the Pope to the Cardinal o f a great, deal o f effort and money, and as though
Bellay during a stay o f two months in 1534 aw akened from its grave, the ancient city too,
(C o o p e r 1 9 8 8 , pp. 1 6 8 —9). H is interest once ruler o f the whole world. W hether you are
coincid ed w ith that o f the Lyons printers looking at the new or the old, bear in mind that
w ho published in the first decades o f the it is of an accuracy attained not ju st by the
century several treatises on R o m a n antiqui square and compass but also by the nautical com
ties by Italian scholars. T h e publication o f pass, taking account o f the positions o f the sky
M arliano’s b o o k at Lyons, in the same year and the sun as well as o f distances. Reflect that
as its im pression in R o m e by Bladus, is o f this great benefaction the first author (after
strange. W e do n o t kn ow w hether it had G od) is Pope Julius III. Fie, with great liberality,
the approval of the author. R ab elais’s inter has given up all save for the one city, and this he
vention is shown in several corrections, and has laid open to all the world. Thus you may
that o f Gryphe, the printer, by a m ore care appreciate the happiness and good fortune o f our
ful edition than that o f the Italian original. own times, thanks to so g ood a Prince.
T h e allusion by R abelais to M arlian o ’s
(Leonardo Bufalini, R o m a al tem po di G iu lio III,
survey m eth od , w hich was distinctly less R o m e, 1551, in A.P. Fruttaz, L e p ia n te di R om a,
precise than the quartering procedure dear R o m e, 1962, p). 189.)
343
E arlier plans o f R o m e were made by

' D ( f a t mmafrm vulfji U iorm
'Tfmti6iqmndcmmo%omu(a tnrajW. painters and artists. B u falin i’s plan was the
‘T’crtt iimml&cf? (fit’. first topographic survey o f the city by an
engineer, w ho made sure o f the precision
svbv5j R\,sperc s of his m easurem ents on the ground.
A ccord ing to F. E h rle (1 911), he signalled
Topographical survey o f R om e, undertaken by the progressive invasion o f the engineers
Leonardo Bufalini in 1551. Detail (above). into antiquarian knowledge.
344
The Viterbo forgeries pages o f apocryphal texts. A gostino’s criti

cism is interesting because it constitutes a
reflection on the nature o f forgery in
A N N I O O F V I T E R B O : T H E P R IN C '. E
archaeology. I f A nnio resorted to this kind
OF F O R G E R S, A C C O R D IN G TO
o f evidence at the end o f the fifteenth cen
A N TO N IO A G O STIN O .
tury, it is because recourse to archaeological
fact already occupied a place in the proce
L atin o L atin i o f Viterbo, a learned and very dures o f historical scholarship.
reliable man, told me that Fra G iovanni A nnio
had had certain characters incised upon a slab
which he had buried in a vineyard near Viterbo
The birth of a town
which was going to be dug soon afterwards. A n d
when he knew that the workm en were in the
vineyard, he arranged it so that they should TH E O R IG IN S OF A U G SBU RG BY
enlarge their trench up to the place where the SIG ISM U N D M E IS T E R L IN .
slab was hidden, telling them that he had dis

covered from his books that one o f the most
O n the construction o f the town o f A ugsburg/
ancient temples in the world had stood there.
H ow men lived at first and how the Sw abians
Thus in digging in the direction o f the slab, the
built this to w n / and concerning the siting o f
first to fin d the stone ran to inform him and
the town the first chapter o f the other b o o k /
had him uncover it a little at a time, and he
and here begins the other book.
began to wonder as much at the stone as at the
W h en / after the flo o d / and the building o f
inscriptions. A n d with the authority o f the text
the tower o f B ab el and the confusion o f the
he went o ff to fin d those in charge o f the town
languages the lineages were sep arated / each
and told them that it was very im portant for
possessed its own a r e a / but the descendants o f
the reputation o f the town that this stone
the son o f N oah called Ja p h e t were p u n ish ed /
should be placed in som e worthy and important
and they occupied a third o f the w o rld / which
place, because it told o f the fou n d a tio n o f
was called E u r o p e / From this particular lin
Viterbo, a town two thousand years older than
eage was detached a people called the S e n o n i/
Romulus, because its founders were Isis and
that is to say the ‘sharp on es’, who were called
Osiris. A n d he added other fables o f his own
at that time the S chw en os/ in G erm an S w abi
such that he achieved his purpose, and so that
a n s / these p eop le were uncivilised in their
one could see som e more published exam ples o f
w a y s/ but en dow ed with physical stren gth/
that [fable] which began thus: E g o sum Isis...
and great courage/ surpassing other races/ This
[I am Isis],
popu lation possessed a great p art o f the
It must be the sam e A nnio o f whose com
G erm an la n d s/ and passed its time in hunting
m entary B asso Florian o d ’ O cam po said that
a n im a ls/ and lived on their m e a t/ and on
had it not been dedicated to the C atholic kings
plants and fr u i t / and on acorns/ o f that time
o f glorious memory, he would have taken it fo r
the p o et Ju v e n a l speaks in the follow in g
a forgery.
m an n er/ at that time a cold cave gave a little
(Antonio Agostino, D ialogos dc medallas, inscriciont's y
sh elter/ there, there was fire and sa fety / there,
atras a n tig u e d a d e s .T a m g o n a , 1587, pp. 4 4 7 —8.)
a rough wom an would m ake a crude bed with
G iovanni N anni di A nnio da V iterb o was grasses/ and with the branches o f trees/ O n top
the most famous forger o f the Renaissance. she w ould throw an anim al s k in / B ut the
H e bequeathed to scholarship hundreds o f woman bore a great bosom to feed the children /
345
O ften she was more horrific than the m a le / upwards surrounding the town with solid
who wore acorns on his h e a d / in these olden ston es/ but not yet w alling/ because they nei
times no one fe a r e d th iev es/ because men fed ther knew how nor could they do i t / although
on the plants and a p p le s/ which grew in open their ancestors had seen in B abylon gates m ade
g a rd en s/ O vid, the renow ned pagan , also ju st o f bricks which were bonded with p itc h /
speaks thus/ the houses were caves or o f broad which p robably they did not have in their
or sm all tree trunks jo in e d with creepers/ thus reg ion / and p erhaps because no one in that
m en lived in p e a c e / although there were not land kn ew how to burn lim eston e/ and the
yet a thousand ditches around the tow ns/ other techniques and arts o f bu ild in g / F or
B oethius also speaks o f those tim es/ O h what Isidore also sa y s/ the ancients built their towns
happy tim e s/ which were content with the and their castles thus with stakes and rammed
fa ith fu l fertility o f the sun / som e o f the Sw abi ea rth / which was as g o od as a wall to them.
ans held the a r e a / situated between two rivers (Sigismund Meisterlin, E in e Schdfie C h ron ik,
called the L ech and the W ertach/ an d lived Augsburg, 1522.)
th e r e / when the tim e cam e that each p eo p le
T his edition, published in Augsburg, c o n
must protect itself against the oth ers/ and as
sists o f the same te x t as the 1 4 5 7 m anu
O vid sa y s! they becam e hostile to strangers/
script (see p. 110), but the illustrations are
A lso they came to m odel them selves/ on the
com pletely different and dem onstrate
other regions/ and attracted by the fa c ilitie s /
forcefully the im pact o f H um anism on the
offered by town life / with the intention o f p ro
vision o f history (see p. 111).
tecting them selves and living together in
another p la c e / fo r that reason they sought a
suitable a r e a / where they could build a tow n /
and so the Sw abians who lived betw een the Pots that grow in the ground
L ech and the W ertach/ fo u n d a p lace which
pleased them which was situated near a tow n /
IN T H E FIEL D S O F T H E VIL LA G E OF
this place was situated in the area where the
NUCHOW , THE EARTH PR O D U C ED POTS
two rivers m et/ that is to say the Lech and the
B Y IT S E L F , T H R O U G H AN
W ertach/ than ks to these rivers they could E X T R A O R D IN A R Y N ATURAL PROCESS.
defend themselves even better/ T hey fo u n d also
salubrious a ir / and springs with fresh w ater!
So this place was well situated f o r all conve AD 1416
n ien ces/ There they began to build houses to T h e kin g left W schow a f o r S rzem . A m essen
live i n / w hile before, n a k ed and weaponless, g er cam e from his kin sm an E rnest, D u k e o f
they had shelter in neither castle nor in any A u stria, to see with his own eyes the truth o f
h o u se / against the fro st and h e a t/ and neither a tale which he h a d learnt fr o m a P olish so l
were they secure among them selves/ but then, dier, J o h n W arschew sky — that in a p a rt o f
with their natural ability, they built houses P olan d, in one particu lar place, p ots o f m any
with crossed p la n k s / and reed s/ and they left types w ere m ade by the action o f nature
the fo r e s ts / where they had lived b efo re/ T hey alon e and w ithout any hum an intervention.
w ould now live together/ so that they might Ju d g in g this tale hardly credible — or no m ore
defend themselves better/ and live p eacefu lly / so than oth er tales that on e hears — and
they also surrounded the town with great th in kin g that it n eed ed to be seen at fir s t
d itch es/ and behind them they heaped ea rth / hand, D u k e E rn est o f A u stria despatched a
such that they had double advan tage/ on one soldier, a m an w ell able to ju d g e o f truth and
side they dug a d itch / on the other they built natural virtue. A n d so K in g W ladislau s,
346
ready to dispel the doubts o f his kin sm an , son according to Israelite custom , with a w ell-
D u k e E rn est, w ent dow n to a f i e l d o f the sh arp en ed ston e; an d J o s h u a , having entered
town o f N ochow , betw een the P olish towns o f P alestine, was ordered by G o d to prep are two
S rzem an d K osten , an d ordered the ground stone kn ives fo r the sam e p u rp ose, w hence
to be dug in his presence, in various places. arose the practice in Israel o f circumcising
H e discovered m any pots, o f different shapes with stone. In the
a n d sizes, created by the w ondrous action p erio d that we are
an d w ork o f nature but just as i f fash ion ed considering there was
by a potter. H e show ed them to the m essen no w orked iron in
g er o f D u k e E rn est, w ho lo o k ed at each o f lands o f the W est;
the pots, m arvels o f the w ork o f nature, such boats, houses, and all
as are jo u n d not ju s t in the one p lace (which other works were fa s h
we have m en tion ed at the start o f this ioned with sharpened
account) but in various p arts of P olan d. T he stones. In fact, flin t or
kin g sen t several p o ts o f varying types to silex, as its name, so
D u k e E rnest, by m eans o f the messenger, to sim ilar to sicilex, ‘Thunderbolts’,
engraving from
bear witness to the truth o f the matter. T hese suggests, seems chosen
M ichele M ercati’s
very pots survive, soft and fragile w hen they for cutting. Sicilices are M etallotheca, 1719.
em erged from the soil but then harden ed by the things with which
the p o w er o f the sun, an d su ita ble f o r all arrow s a n d lan ces are p o in te d , as in the
kin ds o f hum an use. follow in g verse o f Festus, cited in E n n iu s:
(J. Dlugosz, H istoriae Polonicae, Krakow, 1873.) T h e v e le s, h a v in g th ro w n his ja v e lin s

f s ic ilic e s j, ad v an ced in to th e o p e n .
T his is the oldest version to relate the fab
‘C era u n ite’ has the sam e sh a p e as these,
ulous b irth o f vases discovered in Poland
hence the opin ion according to which the
(see p. 145).
ancients, before the working o f iron, cut sicil-
ices fro m flin t and that ‘ceraunite’ comes fro m
this. It seem s that am ong mortals, hate, fro m
The thunderbolts sm all beginnings grew to im m ense proportions,
and the A fricans m ade war on the Egyptians
with clubs, which are called phalanges. B efore
MI C H E L K MKRCAT 1 D E M O N S T R A T E S
this, the P hoenicians (according to Pom ponius
THAT ‘ C E R A U N I T E S ’ ( T H U N D E R B O L T S )
M ela and Pliny) were the originators o f war.
A R E W O R K E D F L I NT S .
N or is w hat Lucretius describes true, that
‘ancient weapons were hands, nails and tee th ’.
T h e ‘cerau n ite’ is com m on in Italy; it is often S ince these are o f little use to m an as
called an ‘a rro w ’ and is m odelled from thin, w eapons, he used his intellect, an d his hands
hard flint into a triangular poin t. O pin ion is p ro v id ed him with w eapons which were very
d iv id ed on the subject. M an y believ e that su ita ble fo r killin g so that som eo n e w ho
they arc cast down by lightn in g; yet those could not k ill in a sim ple, savage way, could
who study history ju d g e that before the use k ill m ore nobly. First, his intellect shoived
of iron they were struck from very hard flint hint stones an d sticks as w eapon s that he
for the folly o f war. In d eed , for the m ost sh o u ld m aster to attack an d overcom e an
ancien t p eop les, p ieces o f flin t served as enem y from afar. W hereas originally fighting
knives. We read in the holy scriptures o f how was restricted to in dividu als ’ disagreem ents,
S ephorah, the w ife of M oses, circumcised her eventually w hose p eo p les and nations took to
347
war. T hen ever more terrible w eapons o f war tury by M ic h e le M e rca ti ( 1 5 4 1 - 9 3 ) , the
were occasioned by envy, greed and am bition, Vatican d octor. H ere are all the elem ents
in their unquenchable thirst for hum an blood. that w ere to lead the antiquaries o f the
T h ey began to apply to spears and to every e ig h teen th cen tu ry to accep t definitively
sort o f weapon points o f horn, bone and flin t, that the ‘cerau nites’ were m ade by m en o f
as is m ain tain ed by those w ho believe that the past.
‘cerau n ite’ was fa s h io n e d to pierce the
strongest cuirass. W hat is obvious fr o m its
crude form , its chipped surface, w orked to a
rough edge, was that it was not m ade by iron Rubens writes to Peiresc
or a f il e , w hich then did not exist, but was
fash io n ed by blows of a stone, into forms
R U B E N S R E C E I V E S AND C O M M E N T S O N
either triangular, rectangular or poin ted . T he P E I R E S C ’ S I N T E R P R E T A T I O N AN D
sm all stum p rem ains by which it was jo in e d D R A W I N G S OF A T R I P O D .
to the spear, by inserting it into the tip of
the sh a ft. In sp ite o f its rough appearan ce
‘cerau n ite’ is shiny on account o f its unusual I have fin ally received your much desired packet
h ard n ess; in colour it is w hite, y ellow ish , containing the very accurate drawings o f your
reddish, dark red, green an d black, and is tripod and m any other curiosities, for which I
som etim es even variegated. O f the sam e m ater send to you the customary paym ent o f a thou
ial are som etim es fou n d narrow blades or sand thanks. I have given to M . Cevaerts the
plaques, a p alm long and h a lf an inch wide, drawing o f Ju p iter Pluvius and showed him all
som e smaller, with pitted corners, polish ed sur the rest. I showed them also to the learned M.
faces, som e f la t and others slightly raised in a W endelinus, who happened to be in Antwerp
ridge down the centre. T hose who think that and came to see m e yesterday with M . G er-
the ancients used ‘cerau nite’ to tip their vaerts. But I have had no time these days, cither
w eapons say they used to adorn their bows yesterday or today, to read your discourse on the
with these plaques. B ut when were they in use, tripod, which doubtless touches on all that falls
and in which p eriod did the tyranny o f iron, to under human intellect, in this matter. N everthe
which ‘cerau nite’ yielded, invade the world? less, according to my accustomed temerity, I shall
T he holy scriptures say that before the Flood- not fa il to state my own views on this subject,
ivaters destroyed the race o f men, iron had been which I am sure that you, with your usual can
m ade, and that its creator was T u bel-C ain , dour, will take in good part.
who was the seventh generation fro m the first In the first place, all utensils which rest on
father. Jo sep h u s writes in his A ntiquities that three fe e t were called ‘tripods’ by the Ancients,
he was m ighty in war, so much so that he even though they served the most varied pu r
seem ed the creator o f iron and war, and that he poses, such as tables, stools, candelabra, pots, etc.
instigated hatred among a sm all group o f blood A n d among other things they had a utensil to
relatives, and to absolve them had discovered set on the fir e under the lebes (chaudron in
how to m ake w eapons o f iron, so there were French) for cooking meat, and this is still used
not any prior to this. today in many parts o f Europe. Then they m ade
a combination o f the lebes and tripod, much
(M . M ercati, M crallothcca Vaticana, opus p o sth u m iu n ,
R o m e, 1719.) like our iron and bronze pots with three feet.
B ut the Ancients gave it the most beautiful pro
T h is te x t, pu blished in 1 7 1 9 , had been portions and, in my opinion, this was the true
drafted at the end o f the six teen th c e n tripod m entioned by H om er and other G reek
348
* v*bb?/ .. . Ncasiro
^ / V 5’- " ■ "&: '
* sfH ^ Omi'"-'-'
/Ct-fte- crx..tu.f/<_ 6
' \Nn Ot^ JxfsS*. i? hji/i4*jcxtou
'Pi. * V ,< * * . C fr,a . yf KUrtuu, PijBteni. /ice <J>u
.-•?£ ^’Jl' 4^r- ^ **• '**"**-/*£u»t*.s»- y*-A£,,<.- A, 'I*
d J. e*'~
■wtt'
N
'?•*'&-***£- ***$» *.S%f
^
Ai S'r J? ^
|V , |t^
^
ti&4m-.e*xA*i«*'r £■•&**- ' j ^\ ^/«.fr ,
x SVfc-Lf t f ■irM
jn--"-1'^ <**<&*■' 6***-
c4-a^ a
/> y l* ,* - <” ~ t-~"- ^ ^
, ^ -A* jfrv w k -*^ e fust/Ujp*ty
' i V*v w i' t" ^ * * ■/ « H4 f* * ‘ ^ A < ,, , **4b^
i >i, « \i * & *»< ;& **''''* "■pZ'-S’r t . ■• /.. //--'/^^©e’ <<"?<Stud** '?*/>■/>*,i&f*Vi^-A
c.p*. '!■'<•'«-•->«v tJfUft*/1* ■/** -Jir£y- ' - -.' j^ ,- /T / .;,x v Ctc £ *$1 ’ rfvfrS T l& vtio j<<^
. /■e#r.lt.e^ . s* v * tv Auci**-£'*ypu> & X ; /?^
sl-< ^ J J fjj" / j4r/i^*~ 71
• •.,e ....-..... -”v *'7\’/'-'/,' /> ' » S V ; ^ y' 'h'
' ‘ .Arn.e y « / i -^1
r / £ «*»aA
' *y«<r> * sjp?*~ S>*
■'>‘i«*£*■"<•
<’4lpnSf't > ■-:& S' ■‘ ■ «<>e ^
’' .'I/ ^ r ' it,- *■
>v- /• /•/•
£f />*. 4 6 i& ~ lrt Ov\. fht/minstfr-— *q_M:.t-t
r ~
y /i*czA ^ * »-"■ , <u-.-
■ Z r Z ' ,- ^ >&».&. c% *. *j/! %
- /' ' '■ ^ /nyPfSVJKlVirtj, /)//
... s g/l\- *&£' ^ - .... r ;.
.
- - f' A'i*' iÔiS. *
51*5*”" ..... - .■• •. . V ' !t" /?-<. yif /C/l* , 'y'" <*>-
<^J««'>*5'*’-•**_ . ■ -, -
- ■ 4i^ J . ? ' S’ * // v *
■fir*, A-J&
*2 ’’?'!•. ’fan-tft1* ' ■.fA. \
.... ,\c/'■' '>/
A /ynM y«-<^». y-Mjr**. - f r t i f r ' t t l /*- * lh; fy/t, !*^..’?y„,, fa f.
' ^ *■*#+<&> f** vtg ■ S ' >f ^.f<r*.'r,, , , /;. /' X_
I* ^ h^ ‘
Letter from Rubens to Peiresc, 10 August 1630. and that because o f this it was called the
‘cortina’, and that it was pierced, as well as the
poets and historians, which was adopted in re basin. It is true that in R om e one finds various
culinaria /or cooking meats. A nd with regard to tripods of marble, which have no concavity. A n d
the use o f entrails in their sacrifices, they began it was also often the custom, as you will see in
to have in ter sacram supellectilem ad several o f the quotations below, to place on the
eundem usum. I do not believe, however, that same tripods statues dedicated to various gods;
the D elphic Tripod was o f this type, but rather a and this could not have been done except on a
kind o f seat o f three legs, as is still commonly solid and level base. O ne must believe that the
used throughout. Europe. [In m argin: /« D elphic Tripod was copied and used for other
ancient monuments we fin d seats with four feet, gods, and that the word ‘tripod’ denoted every
like the ‘Sella J o v is ’, but also som e stools, or kind of oracle and sacred mystery, as we see it
seats with three feet, like our own stools.J This still used in pantom im es o f Marcus Lepidus.
scat did not have a concave basin, or i f it were But the point which has more bearing on our
concave to hold the skin o f the Python, it was subject I shall state with more care, and that is,
covered on top, and the Pythoness could sit on that the Ancients used a certain kind of chafing-
this cover, which had a hole underneath. It does dish or rechaud (as they say in French) m ade o f
not seem to me likely that she could sit with her bronze, with a double coating in every part, to
thighs in the concavity, because o f the discomfort resist the fire. [In m argin: In Paris there are two
o f the depth o f the basin and its cutting rim. rechauds o f this kind m ade in silver.] This was
It could also be that the skin o f the Python in the form o f a tripod, and was used in their
was stretched over this hollou> as over a drum, sacrifices and perhaps also in their banquets.
349
There is no doubt that this was the tripod o f R u b e n s is responding to P eiresc’s dis
bronze so often mentioned in the Ecclesiastical course and drawings o f his new ly acquired
H istory o f Eusebius, and by other authors — the tripod. Gervaerts was preparing a b o o k on
tripod which served for burning incense to their M arcus A urelius, and in 1628 Peiresc
idols - as you will see in the references below. prom ised to obtain fo r him a drawing o f
A n d i f I am not greatly m istaken, this bronze the R a in G od from the A ntonine C olu m n
tripod o f yours, considering its material, its small in R o m e . Peiresc introduced new standards
size, and the simplicity o f workmanship, is one o f o f p recision in record ing antiquities and
those which was used to burn incense in the sac R u b en s righ tly drew atten tion to the
rifices. T he hole in the middle served as an air accuracy o f P eiresc’s tripod drawings.
hole to m ake the coals burn better; ju st as all R u ben s to o k a far m ore fun ctional
modern rechauds must still have one or many approach to the discussion o f tripods, but
apertures f o r this purpose. A n d as far as one can his ow n views did n o t differ significantly
see from the drawing, the bottom o f the basin, or from P eiresc’s opinions. Peiresc was m ore
crater, is broken and consumed by the fire. /In inclined to see the orifice in the bow l as a
m argin: T he capacity of your basin does not source o f m ysterious winds than as a fire
exceed that of the ordinary rechaud which we ventilator!
use today, and the shape is so appropriate to this (David JafFe, R u b en s’ S elf-portrait in l :ocus, Australian
purpose that if I should need such a utensil, I National Gallery, Canberra.)
should want to have it m ade in this way]. That
This com m entary by David Jaffe has funda
is all I can say at present on this subject, leaving
mentally reconstructed the intellectual rela
to you freedom and authority to criticize. In any
tionship w hich united the two m en, and
event, neither M M . W endelinus nor Gevaerts
makes them the m ost prestigious symbol o f
advances sufficient arguments to the contrary.
archaeology in the classical age.
A n d so I rather think that, little by little, they
will incline to this opinion.
350
CHAPTER THREE the sam e situation as these ancient philosophers

would have been, had they lived up until the
FROM ANTIQUARY present, adding to the know ledge which they

had that which their studies might have gained
TO ARCHA E O LOGI ST them with the advantage o f so many centuries. It
follow s that, through a particular prerogative, not
On the childhood of man only does each man advance day by day in the
sciences, but all men together m ake constant
progress as the universe grows older, because the
TH E Y O U T H OF TH E A N C IE N T W O R L D
AND THE A N TIQ U ITY OF THE M O D ER N ,

sam e thing happens in the succession o f men as
A C C O R D IN G TO in the various ages o f an individual. Such that
F R A N C I S U A C .O N A N D P A S C A L . the whole succession o f men, during the course o f
so m any centuries, must be considered as one
individual who continues to live and learns all
O n the subject o f antiquity, the idea that men
the tim e: and thus we sec how unjustly we
have o f it is utterly careless and hardly agrees
respect antiquity in its philosophers; for, since as
with the meaning oj the word. For the world’s
old age is that age which is furthest from
old age is its true antiquity and should apply to
infancy, who cannot fail to see that great age in
our own times, not to the world’s youth, when this universal man must not be sought in the
the ancients lived. For their age, which from our times closest to his birth, but in those furthest
own point o f view is ancient and older, from the
away from it? Those whom we call the ancients
world’s point o f view is new and younger. And, were truly new in everything, and form, prop
in fact, ju st as we expect a greater knowledge of erly, the infancy o f m an; and as we have join ed
human life and a more mature judgem ent from
to their knowledge the experience o f the follow
an old man than from a young one, because o f
ing centuries, it is in ourselves that we can find
his experience and the range and wealth o f m at
that antiquity which we revere in the others.
ters which he has seen and heard and thought
(Blaise Pascal, Preface to the Traite du vide, C om p lete
about; so we can likew ise fairly expect much
W orks, Paris, 1954, pp. 533—4.)
greater things from our own times, i f only they
knew their strength and had the will to exert it, T h e assessment o f tim e initiated by B aco n
than from former times, seeing that the age o f the and taken up by Pascal cam e as a reversal o f
world is now more advanced and enriched with a the theories accepted since the first ancient
multitude o f experiments and observations. historiographers. It made possible a history
o f m ankind w hich would be in a particular
(Francis Bacon , N ovu m O rganum , translated by
Peter Urbach and Joh n Gibsch, Chicago and La
way a history o f hum an progress. It opened
Salle, 1994.) the way for a universal history w hich in te
grated m an and nature.
M an is in ignorance during the first age o f his
life, but as he grows he educates h im self con
stantly, f o r he takes advantage not only o f his The taste for travel
own experience, but also o f that o f his predeces
sors, because he keeps in his memory the know l
SPO N, C O L L E C T O R OF IN SC R IP T IO N S,
edge that he has gain ed, and that o f the
V ISIT S G R E E C E .
ancients, which is ever present in the books
which they have left behind them. A n d as he
preserves this knowledge, he can also easily aug It is to be ex p ected that th ose w ho g iv e
ment it, such that men are today in som e way in accounts o f their travels deal with their subject
351
in their own way. Som e sp eak only of palaces, strong desire at least to take a trip as far as
churches and public squares. O thers only A thens, which was once to Greece what R om e
address their readers on the subject o f the was to Italy. Perhaps I would not have carried
layout of towns, their population , their fortifi out my design had I not fou nd three English
cation and their police. T here are som e who are gentlem en who offered to join the party, and to
more speculative, who like to describe the reli share with m e the risks o f the journey: but as
gion , customs and costumes o f countries which the passion for travel grows in the process, we
they have only passed through. had scarcely glim psed the coast o f Greece when
O thers describe to us the plants, minerals we said to each other that it would not bc right
and trade o f the places they have been to. I to leave it w ithout seeing C onstantinople,
adm it that a traveller shou ld kn ow how to presently the forem ost attraction there: and we
reply to anything asked o f him after his return; had barely stayed there a m onth in that city
but it is a thing to be w ished for rather than when, seeing ourselves to be so close to A sia
expected, short o f fin d in g a universal man with Minor, we thought ourselves obliged to p a y it
very good health, much income and leisure for one o f our visits before our return. A ll along
his travels. F or myself, I have not in truth that route I found things to satisfy my curios
neglected all these details, when I could learn ity amply, having brought back a great num ber
them easily and at little cost: but it will not be o f G reek inscriptions which had never yet seen
hard to see, were I to own up to it, that my the light o f day. I reproduce here the most
most important researches were towards know l interesting o f them , o f use in geography: but as
edge o f the ancient monuments o f the countries this is not to everyone’s taste I have relegated
ivhich I saw on the voyage, and that this was them to the end o f the discourse, which will
my strongest inclination. I was never very eager thus be less interrupted. I render them as
to attend the fam o u s R om an rituals, the con exactly and as faithfully as possible: any infi
certs or the Italian operas, but as I had under delity com m itted by m y self comes from not
taken a work on ancient inscriptions to serve as having always been able to p u t in the inscrip
a supplem ent to those o f Gruterus (and m ade tions according to the arrangem ent and the
som e progress with it before leaving), I passed num ber o f lines in the original, having been
the days, and whole months, in R om e, doing lim ited by the sm all size of the volume, which
scarcely anything but look at the statues, bas- could be rem edied in a L atin edition in a
reliefs and ruins, and copying all the inscrip larger fo r m a t, i f this one is w ell received.
tions — not only those which are not included A n other infidelity o f which I could be accused,
in Gruterus, but also m any o f those which are, however advantageous it may be to the reader,
to see i f they are exactly rendered: such that is that in the G reek inscriptions I separate the
after having stayed there fiv e months running, words which should be separated, when in
and assem bled, through the agency o f various truth most o f the time there was no distinction
intelligent p eop le, all those bearing upon my on the stones and marbles I took them fro m ,
subject from the kingdom o f N aples and from w hether through the fa u lt o f the sculptors or for
other places in Italy where I did not intend to reasons unknow n to us. T his m akes for such
travel, I fou n d m y self in possession o f more confusion, and gives so much difficulty in deci
than two thousand which were unknow n to phering them, that for this reason in the book
that author, among which there are som e very entitled M arm ora O xo n ien sa graeca incisa,
significant: and m editating upon the fin e har f o r the relief oj the reader, they were rendered
vest which I could reap in Greece, where trav fir s t according to the original, and then in
ellers up until now have merely brushed the sm all letters with the words distinguished and
surface o f this curiosity, I was se iz ed by a m arked with accents.
352
(J. Spon and G .W heeler, Voyage d ’ltalie, de D alm atie, T hat the bones o f Theseus should be seen
de G rece e( du L ev an t , Lyons, 1678, preface.)
again in Athens, was not beyond conjecture, and
Spon and W h eeler were not the first visi hopeful expectation; but that these should arise
tors to G reece in the seventeenth century; so opportunely to serve your self, was an hit o f
they were preceded by m ore prestigious fate and honour beyond prediction.
m en, such as the M arquis o f N oin tel, Louis We cannot but wish these Urnes might have
X I V ’s ambassador to the Sublim e Porte the effect o f Theatrical vessels, and great H ippo
[the O ttom an cou rt at C onstantinople], but drome Urnes in R o m e ; to resound the accla
th eir expertise and curiosity made their mations and honour due unto you. But these are
individual accounts o f the jo u rn ey, pub sad and sepulchral Pitchers, which have no joyfu l
lished separately, models o f the genre. Spon voices; silently expressing old mortality, the
linked his gifts as an antiquary to his expe m ines oj jorgotten times, and can only speak
rience as an epigrapher: he was the first to with life, how long in this corruptible fram e, some
employ the con cept o f archaeology in the parts may be uncormpted; yet able to out-last
French language. bones long unborn, and noblest pyle among us.
We present not these as any strange sight or
spectacle unknown to your eyes, who have beheld
the best o f Urnes, and noblest variety o f A shes;
On immortality W ho are your se lf no slender master o f A ntiqui
ties, and can daily command the view o f so many
Imperiall faces; W hich raiseth your thoughts unto
MA N F ACE D B Y R E M E M B R A N C E :
old things, and consideration o f times before you,
HYDRIOTA PHI A , U R N -B U R IA LL, O R, A
when even living men were A ntiquities; when
D ISC O U R SE OF THH SE PU LC H R A LL URXF.S
the living might exceed the dead, and to depart
LA TELY FO U N D IN N O R FO L K . TO G E TH E R
this world, could not be properly said, to go unto
WITH TH E G A RD EN O F C Y R U S ... 1 6 5 8 B Y
THOMAS BROWNE.
the greater number. A n d so run up your thoughts
upon the ancient o f dayes, the A ntiquaries truest
object, unto whom the eldest parcels are young,
TO M Y W ORTHY AND H O N O U RED FRIEND, and earth it s e lf an Infant; and without Aigypt-
THOMAS LE GROS O F GRO STW ICK, ESQ. ian account m akes but small noise in thousands.
W hen the Funerall pyre was out, and the last We were hinted by the occasion, not catched
valediction over, men took a lasting adieu o f the opportunity to write o f old things, or intrude
their interred Friends, little expecting the curios- upon the Antiquary. We are coldly drawn unto
ity of Jutu re ages should comment upon their discourses o f Antiquities, who have scarce time
ashes, and having no old experience o f the dura before us to comprehend new things, or m ake out
tion o f their Reliques, held no opinion of such learned Novelties. But seeing they arose as they
after considerations. lay, almost in silence among us, at least in short
B ut who knows the fate o f his bones, or how account suddenly passed over; we were very
often he is to be buried? W ho hath the Oracle o f unwilling lest they should die again, and be
his ashes, or whither they are to be scattered? buried twice among us.
T he R eliqu es o f m any lie like the m ines o f Beside, to preserve the living, and m ake the
Pompeys, in all parts o f the earth; A n d when dead to live, to keep men out o f their Urnes, and
they arrive at your hands, these may seem to discourse oj hum ane fragm ents in them, is not
have wandred far, who in a direct and M erid impertinent unto our profession; whose study is
ian Travell, have but a few miles oj known life and death, who daily behold exam ples o f
E arth between your s e lf and the Pole. mortality, and o f all men least need artificial
353
m em ento’s, or coffins by our bed side, to minde us (Sir Thom as Brow ne, U rne BurialI an d the G arden o f
o f our graves. C y ras, ed. Jo h n Carter, Cam bridge University Press,
1958, pp. 3 -5 .)
‘Tis time to observe Occurrences, and let
nothing remarkable escape us; T he Supinity oj B row ne com bined the gifts o f an observer
elder dayes hath left so much in silence, or time w ith a w rite r’s style. H ydriotaphia was
hath so martyred the Records, that the most undoubtedly the m ost thoroughly literary
industrious heads do finde no easie work to erect m asterpiece o f antiquarian learning before
a new Britannia. W inckelm ann, and the style did not affect
‘Tis opportune to look back upon old times, the precision o f description or the original
and contemplate our Forefathers. Great examples ity o f thought.
grow thin, and to be fetch ed from the passed
world. Simplicity flies away, and iniquity comes
at long strides upon us. We have enough to do to
Archaeological stratigraphy
m ake up our selves fro m present and passed
times, and the whole stage o f things scarce serveth
IN T H E S E V E N T E E N T H CENTURY
f o r our instruction. A compleat peece of vertue
R U D B E C K D E S C R IB E S A N D DATES TH E
must be m ade up from the C entos o f all ages, as
D I F F E R E N T S T R A T A O F TFIE S O IL .
all the beauties o f G reece could m ake but one
handsome Venus.
W hen the bones o f K ing Arthur were digged § I V Now, seeing that between N o a h ’s Flood
up, the old Race might think, they beheld therein and today about 4 0 0 0 years have passed, and
some Originals o f themselves; Unto these o f our that since that time all the humus, accumulated
Urnes none here can pretend relation, and can on the groun d and derived from decom posed
only behold the Reliques o f those persons, who in grass and leaves, that which the mists and rain
their life giving the Law unto their predecessors, have left, and from dust transported by the
after long obscurity, now lye at their mercies. But wind, amounts to no more that eight- or, at the
remembring the early civility they brought upon most, nine-tenths of a quart Iquarter], I m ade
these Countreys, and forgetting long passed mis a m easuring-stick divided into tenths and
chiefs; We mercifully preserve their bones, and always carried it with m e; and, according to
pisse not upon their ashes. this division, 1 0 0 0 years correspond to a fifth
In the offer o f these Antiquities we drive not o f the stick and 5 0 0 years to a tenth, ju st as
at ancient Families, so long out-lasted by them; you can confirm by pi. 31 fig. 104 [seep . 2 0 2 ].
We are fan e from erecting your worth upon the § V T o verify this idea, I sought to compare
pillars o f your Fore-fathers, whose merits you places where I know, on the one hand, it im s
illustrate. We honour your old Virtues, con bare o f soil 10, 40, 80, 100, 2 0 0 or even 8 0 0
form a ble unto times before you, which are the years ago, and, on the other, how much humus
N oblest Armoury. A nd having long experience o f has p ile d up. Ten years ago I laid bare the
your friendly conversation, void o f em pty For ground around the jou n ta in s o f the chateau,
mality, full o f freedome, constant and Generous and I still fin d no visible traces o f hum us; to be
Honesty, I look upon you as a G em m e o f the precise, the grass had grown but its roots p en e
O ld R ock, and must professe my s e lf even to trated the sand, such as it was. Forty years ago,
Urne and Ashes, as M. Ingelbrecht Swensson told me, the road
Your ever faithfull Friend, fro m Sandasen to Lagarden was rem ade; in the
and Servant, adjacent forest, sand was quarried to level the
lowest parts o f the road. In these holes and pits
Thom as Browne. one could hardly discern the overlying humus,
354
as thin as a leaf with meagre ground cover. paler; on the other hand, towards the m iddle
A bou t one hundred years ago, in the reign o f (see Byl, slightly darker, and above a little
Je a n , son of G ustav I, part of the castle was p aler; towards the vegetation, a little darker
built on a sandy knoll, and the sand removed and striped, whilst the bark and pine-needles
for the foundations was dum ped a little to the were som etim es intact, som etim es h a lf or
west, and on this sand I fou n d a layer o f entirely decom posed; whatever, all is lik e a
hum us no thicker than a fifth of a d oigt piece of burnt p aper or cloth which, after com
[inch] with vegetation above. W hen I had bustion , gives the impression of being intact but
rem oved this, after the works for the new which, when touched or breathed on, turns to
garden, there was — in the earth, at a depth o f dust. Ju s t as I have learnt it in other locations,
one, two, and som etim es three picds [feetI, this differentiation is due to the fact that the
depending of the slope o f the form er cutting - forest has burnt, because it then becomes w ind
old humus, always resting on the k n o ll’s sand swept dust and rain and snow affected: ju st as,
and measuring about eight-tenths o f a quart: in an open field, the humus is never as black
according to my calculations, the humus reached as that in the forest. A nd, as a forest recovers
in one hundred years a thickness no greater after a fire, the hum us becom es darker and
than the fifth o f a doigt. darker. H ere and there, one sees a few grains o f
E veryon e know s that Sw eden ivas C h ris sand, which seem to have been brought by
tianised seven or eight hundred years ago, from birds or forest animals, on their paw s or feet
which time there ivere no more cremations or where the grains of sand might lodge and fall
barrow burials. here and there.
L o o kin g at more recent mounds, of which I In the second illustration C , there is only
have ex a m in ed 1 6 ,0 0 0 , one finds no less hard white sand, on which the humus lies
than tw o-tenths o f hum us on them . In the cleanly, as i f a black stripe had been pain ted
largest royal tombs in ancient U ppsala, there over a white base. Thus, one can establish its
were no burials later than 9 0 0 or 1 0 0 0 , when beginning with an assured and precise means,
C hristianity arrived. T he humus o f the high and equally its thickness and depth. T h e colour
est m ounds reached there a thickness of two o f this humus is always less dark below, whilst
tenths o f a quart. A ll this proves the exacti increasingly dark towards the top, which shows
tude o f the calculations for the humus, to that, at the outset, trees and vegetation were
know that a tenth o f a quart corresponds to always sm aller after N o a h ’s F lood and that, in
nearly five hundred years and a fifth o f a consequence, the dust found in the air, the rain
d oigt to one hundred years. and the snow was not over-thick, nourishing,
§ VIII. f . . . J On p i. 3 1 fig. 1 04, there is fertile or redolent, which it later became, for the
firstly the drawing of a measure of about half a various reasons which I leave my distinguished
foot or a quarter, divided into 10 parts, or 10 reader to identify, to avoid my over-long excur
doigts. A longside, there is a drawing of a layer sions. T he third drawing shows, near the letter
of humus found at a great depth in the sedi D , gravel and, above that, the humus that is
ment (where neither hum an nor anim al might found in all places where flocks normally g raze
have arrived without difficulty), a layer resting and which contains som e grains o f sand E , or
on sm all stones or pebbles around A ; from small stones, which p eop le or animals, for rea
thence, one measures its thickness to the level sons to which I have already alluded, left or
of vegetation, a thickness equivalent to nine- brought there. T he fin al little drawing shows a
tenths but whose base is hard to determ ine, burial m ound with gravel on top, and inside it
since the hum us had begun to form in gaps a sword fragment, c, amongst the bones and
between the stones. T h is hum us was a little burnt remains of the corpse. T h e gravel in this
355
m ound is located between b and b, and above, Treasure -hunting

between d and d, one can see the humus, about
3 doigts thick, which corresponds to about
T H E D I S C O V E R Y O F T H E G R A V E OF
1 5 0 0 years. C H I F D F R I C I AT T O U R N A I , 1 6 5 3 .
§ IX . T he depth of humus found in grass
land is about eight-tenths m axim um , that in
the w ildest of forests, w here no one can go Tournai, a fair-sized city with a circumference
w ithout difficulty, about nine-tenths. T his is that exceeds four thousand paces, is divided in
always a little less com pacted, to the extent the m iddle by the river Scheldt, which sep a
that it compresses when we w alk heavily on it, rates the territory o f the archbishopric of C am -
though still never surpassing much more than brai from that oj Artois and the Tournaisis. T he
eight-tenths. T he hum us fou n d on grassland, part that is subject to the archdiocese o f C am -
prominences, hills or mounds is always harder, brai has three w ell-know n parishes: St J o h n ’s,
however, so that it scarcely gives when w alked St N ich o las’s, and, between them, St B rice’s,
over. Thus we understand that the age o f the which is the biggest and most favoured. Its
humus is calculated by slightly different means, incumbent, who is also D ean of Christianity,
depending on w hether it is in open or forest is the distinguished m an, G iles Pattus; beside
land: the difference is, however, not important the churchyard and his own dwelling-place, he
when one considers w hat is being com pared: saw the house o f St B rice’s Treasurer, given
here, we do not search for dating by year, over to the housing o f the poor, decay through
month or day, but for the distinction between old age into ruin. H e debated the matter with
several hum an generations in terms of the his churchwardens and decided to take o ff its
dating o f a burial mound. ro o f and raze its walls so as to build a new
house from the ground upwards, to rise higher
(From O. R u d b eck, AtUwd cllcr M a id ieim , 1697; ed.
than before.
A. N elson, Uppsala, 1937.)
Thus, in the year 165 3 , on 2 1 May, at the
R u d b e c k was som ething o f a genius, not third hour after noon, w hile digging was in
only in his con cep t o f stratigraphy but also progress to the depth of seven feet or more,
in his daring intuition o f a dating m ethod down to the rock, there was found first a gold
derived from observation o f superficial soil clasp and soon a w hole mass, round as i f
layers. C ertainly his m ethods appear som e shaped by a disintegrated purse, in which were
w hat simplistic to vis, but they mark a sig more than a hundred gold coins, disclosed by a
nificant p oint in the establishm ent of blow of the p ick o f A driaen Q uinquin, mason
conventions for observing strata based on o f Tournai. H e (being d e a f and dum b fro m
survey and a precise d escription o f soil birth) began to m ak e his ill-form ed sounds
com position. W ith N icolas B erg ier (see pp. and, so far as he could, alert the neighbour
2 0 1 —3 ), R u d b e c k can be considered as a hood. T here then ran up to him D ean Pattus
forerunner o f the stratigraphic m ethod. H e and the two churchwardens, Jo h n de Berio and
only lacked recourse to the com parative N icasius Rogers, brother o f the abbot of
analysis of finds, w h ich would have Liessies, hastening (and with g o o d cause) to
enabled him to cross the boundary separat claim whatever treasure there might be for their
ing antiquarian p ractice from m od ern church and the dwelling-house o f its paupers.
archaeological m eth od . As later w ith In the sam e spot were found about two hun
Stukeley (see p. 3 6 0 ), the m ixture o f pre dred R om an silver coins, but so worn and cor
cise observation and religious fantasy roded that they could not be read; they mostly
w h ich pervades his w ork is fascinating. crumbled into dust. There were also excavated
356
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANLHOLOGY
many objects o f ironwork, rusted and consumed brated discoveries o f sev enteenth-centu ry
by age and the great wetness o f the place, and archaeology. T h e description o f the discov
two skulls, one larger than the other, with the ery illustrates the lack o f interest shown by
bones o f a hum an skeleton stretched out. A n d the Tournai clerics in the circum stances o f
finally, within the space o f about fiv e feet, were the find: it was a case not o f excavation but
fou n d several remnants o f a treasure: a sword o f treasure-hunting.
o f such fin e steel that at the first touch it shat
tered into pieces; a hilt and sheath; a writing-
case, o x ’s head, and m any bees - m ore than
T h e C o ch crcl discovery
three hundred — that constituted (so far as can
be ju dged) the remnant o f a yet more im por
tant w hole that could not be seen clearly A C C O U N T OF THE C I RC UM S TA NC E S
am idst such confusion; a needle, clasps, hooks, O F T H E D I S C O V E R Y OE A M E G A L I T H I C

G R A V E IN 1 6 8 5 B Y T H E A B B O T OF
little hooks, studs, threads and buckles, all o f
C O C H E R E L IN N O R M A N D Y .
gold, together with an infinite num ber ofi
pyrope [gold-bronze] objects.
‘T h e h ea d o f a warhorse dug out o f the
It is very difficult to establish precisely the
grou n d’ [Silvius Italicusj.
origin and antiquity o f the ancient monuments
It would have been difficult, indeed impossi
which are found by chance when there are nei
ble, to judge the period or the identity o f the p o s
ther inscriptions, nor bas-reliefs, nor sculptures,
sessor o f all these objects i f there had not been
nor engravings, nor decoration which m ight be
found with them the gold ring o f Childeric, king
used for chronology; or one finds nothing p re
o f the Franks, to indicate this.
cise in H istory on which one might rest o n e’s
T h e news o f the discovery o f the treasure
conjectures.
becam e know n through the whole city, and its
Thus one can only have the slightest com
authorities sent representatives to the D ean
prehen sion o f the tomb in question, all the
and churchwardens with the request to inspect
things which have shed som e light being m iss
w hat had been discovered. T h e D ean and
ing, there only having been found there som e
churchwardens sent to them, not indeed every
stones o f extraordinary siz e and shape, which
thing (as was popu larly believed during the
had been placed under the heads o f these
five months before the return o f his H ighness),
bodies, either to preserve som e m ark o f their
but ju st the royal ring, two ornaments from the
status, or to satisfy established practices, or f o r
bridle o f the kin g ’s horse, the gold threads from
som e religious ceremony In the m onth of
his m antle, a g o ld needle, twently-seven gold
Ju ly 1 6 8 5 , the king having com m anded that
bees, four clasps, studs and eighteen other buck
various w orks be un dertaken on the R iver
les differently w orked. A ll these the authorities
Eure to ease navigation, the lord o f the parish
o f the city kept, so as to look at them more
o f C o ch erel h a d ordered w ork on the boat-
clearly. B ut the weight o f these few objects was
passage for this river, for which he h a d need
thirteen ounces o f gold.
o f three to fou r hun dred feet o f cut stone,
(From J.J. Chifflet, A nastasis C hilderici Fmncorum requiring this gentlem an to prospect the ground
regis sive thesaurus sepuichm lis Tornaci N evioru m cfjossus
for all that it might provide him , not having
et com m entario illustratus, Antwerp, 1655.)
the m oney to acquire from the local quarries,
C h iffle t’s text com m unicates the atm os because no labourers could be fou nd to work
phere o f excitem en t, w onder and greed there, all the masons having been detailed to
w h ich surrounded on e o f the m ost cele M aintenon for m ajor works.
357
THE DISCOVERY Of THE FAST
H e recalled having seen on a sizeable em i o f L ondon had published a report on

nence, catching the m idday sun and hanging C ocherel. T h e French version is fully pub
above the river, two large stones set upright, lished by Le Brasseur in his Histoire civile et
projecting no more than a foot out of the ecclesiastique du comte d'Evreux (1 7 2 2 ), and
ground, placed like the boundary m arkers used M ontfaucon devotes a chapter to it in his
to separate land-holdings. O ne o f these stones Antiquite expliquee (volume V.2, chapter IX ).
was six feet high, tw o-au d-a-half feet wide and
on e-an d -a-h alf feet thick. T h e second was three
feet wide, the sam e thickness and six feet high.
T hese two stones had been found fifteen years
Barrows
before by three unidentified men, who remain
unknown and who arrived in this place on a HOW TO IN T E R P R E T TH E U R N S
feast day whilst all the inhabitants were in F O U N D IN B A R R O W S .
church: they m ade a hole about three feet

square and rather deeper; they extracted the
Ossa tamen facito parva referantur in urna
bones o f the two bodies from the head to
Sic ego etiani non mortuns exnl ero.
halfway down the spine; they left these bones
(Even if you put my ashes and bones into this
on the side o f the hole which was not ba ck
urn, my hom e will still bc this grave.)
filled, and left no indication that they intended
to search to left or right or above or below ; they O V ID
went away ivithout further ado leaving these

Last week, in order to provide the kind reader
relics beside the hole. 'The lord o f the place,
with a different topic, we presented two small
having been notified, m ade his first visit to the
idols or graven images o f our pagan ancestors;
site a few days later.
now we shall continue with the prom ised six
Seeing that the diggers had had so little rev
remaining urns. Although we had a reasonable
erence for the bones, he was of the opinion that
num ber o f urns, only six remain since som e
the three strangers m ight have been E nglish
were given as presents to connoisseurs o f those
men with som e m em ory o f a felloiv country
antiquities and others were broken and destroyed
man killed in the B attle o f C ocherel, fought
during traasportation.
close by in 1 3 6 4 , and that this m em ory
Before I begin with the description o f the
included a m ention that som ething valuable
remaining urns, however, one or two general
had been buried near these two m arker stones,
statements concerning the urns must be briefly
and that having found and taken what they
m ade (for if this topic were to be elaborated upon
most regarded, had no consideration for the
according to a connoisseur’s taste, it would easily
rest; and also he believed that it would be use
fill several volumes).
less to bother with a longer investigation at
I fin d quite ridiculous the opinion o f those
that time, whilst those who might know more
who believe that the urns were generated by the
o f the matter were long absent.
earth (as if they were earth-mushrooms), self
(Lc Brasseur, H istoirc cii'ik t l ccclcsiasriquc du cointc
growing, and that they sprouted in the spring,
d ’lSvrcux, Paris, 172 2 , pp. 1 7 2 -3 .)
and more precisely, in the month o f M ay
T h e C o ch erel discovery aroused massive (indeed, were they stewpots with a good chicken
interest in E urope in the scholarly world. or som e other meat-stew, and did not emerge
T h e gentlem an responsible gave a sworn from the earth only in M ay but throughout the
statem ent to a notary and had a num ber o f year, such that nothing was lacking and it was
drawings made. B y 1686 the R oyal Society only a case of: ‘Help yourself and eat, because it’s
358
traditionem (oh, what a fine thing tradition is!)

through their parents and forefathers. A n d who
wouldn’t believe what their grandfather’s mother,
brother and wife had heard fro m their grand
mother? I often have to laugh aloud when
people, apparently not gullible at all, name their
grandmother or grand-aunt as incontestible p ro o f
o f those anecdotes and the like.
/ ...] It is indeed inane to believe that the urns
should belong to dwarfs and gnomes. A n even
Tumuli, from Andreas Albert Rhode, Cim brisch- greater stupidity, however, is the superstition of
Holsteinische Antiquitaten Remarques, 1719.
those who think that the seeds fro m the urns,
when sown on fields or in gardens, should grow
been kept for y o u ’, then it would be ju st the job
better than other grains; likewise the superstition
for those who enjoy eating roast pidgeons but
of those who imagine that the m ilk contained in
who want them to fly straight into their mouths.)
the urns should become richer and yield more
T he incomparable geographer M unster (but,
butter, or that those who are convinced that
hush!, he is to be compared with Pliny, since
chicken who drink from that m ilk w on’t get ill.
both have the sam e reputation among the
This reveals sufficiently the prevailing sim ple-
learned, i.e. none — Q uis enim Plinio m enda-
mindedness and superstition.
cior? ‘W ho tells more lies than Pliny?’) is in
(A.A. R h od e, C im brische-H olstein ische A ntiqu itaten
favour o f that kind o f stupidity, saying in book
R em arques, ninch week, 28 February 1719,
I l f chapter 4 9 : ‘In Pohlandt’ (meaning Poland)
Flamburg, pp. 66—72.)
‘there are to be fo u n d pots shaped by Nature,
which, once taken fro m the earth, are just like Andreas A lbert R h o d e had a sense o f the
other pots.’ Well shot, but wide o f the m ark! I f absurd, a feeling for the landscape and the
Nature had taken pains to create these pots, she passion o f a man o f faith. His ‘R em arks on
would certainly have created along with the pots A n tiquities’ was n o t only a manual o f
the things inside, such as ashes, bones, pegs, archaeology but, with its colourful expres
brooches, hairpins, etc. A n d if she is able to do sions and vocabulary, a treatise on historical
that, she can doubtless do more; so, instead o f m eth od w h ich opened the way to the
making pastry oneself, why not let Nature do the exploration o f the soil and the stratigraphic
cooking? (I would really like to know what and anthropological interpretation of
people understand by the word ‘N ature’!) remains. T h e m ost m ilitant o f eighteenth-

Ju s t as absurd as the opinions o f M unster and cen tu ry archaeologists was also the m ost
his like are the views o f those who believe that lively voice o f G erm an protohistory.
the pots were m ade by dwarfs or gnom es (risum

teneatis am ici! - restrain your laughter, my
friends!), who still need them, and use them as Anatomy of the earth
offerings for their dead. It should be incredible to
f in d among men the kin d o f stupidity that
STU K ELEY O BSERV ES AND D E SC R IB E S
m akes them believe in dwarfs or gnomes.
TH E M EG A LITH S OF G R E A T B R IT A IN .
N onetheless it has to be confirmed that some
who even want to be considered as the forem ost
scholars take the above-m entioned merely as an A fe w years ago I spent some time every summer
article o f faith, having come to know o f it per in viewing, measuring, and considering the works
359
o f the ancient Druids in our Island; I mean those these barrows was to dig up the tu rffor a great
remarkable circles o f Stones which we fin d all space round, till the barroiv was brought to its
over the kingdom, many o f which I have seen, intended bulk. Then with the chalk, dug out o f
but o f m any more I have had accounts. Their the environing ditch, they pow der’d it all over. So
greatness and number astonish’d me, nor need I that for a considerable time, these barrows must
be afraid to say, their beauty and design, as well have lo o k ’d white: even for som e number o f
as antiquity, drew my particular attention. I years. A n d the notion o f sanctity an n ex ’d to
could not help carrying my inquiries about them them, forbid people trampling on them, till per
as f a r as I was able. M y studies this way have fectly settled and turf’d over. H ence the neatness
produced a vast quantity o f drawings and writ o f their form to this day. A t the top or center o f
ing, which consider’d as an intire work, may thus this barrow, not above three foot under the sur
be intitled, Patriarchal Christianity or A face, my Lord found the skeleton o f the interr’d ;
Chronological h is t o r y o f the Origin and perfect, o f a reasonable size, the head lying
Progress o f true Religion, and o f Idolatory. / ...] toward Stonehenge, or northward.
In 1 1 2 2 , my late Lord Pem broke, Earl
(W illiam Stukeley, Stonehenge, A tem ple restored to the
Thomas, who was p lea s’d to favou r my inquiries B ritish D ruids, Garland Publishing Inc., N Y and
at this place, open ’d a barrow, in order to fin d the London 1984.)
position o f the body observ’d in these early days.
H e pitched upon one o f those south o f Stone W ith Stukeley the passion for D ruidism
henge, close upon the road thither from W ilton: went easily w ith the observation o f remains.
and on the east side o f the road. ‘Tis one of the O n e finds in him the same qualities as in
double barrows, or where two are inclos’d in one R u d b e ck : a d o cto r’s passion for the
ditch: one o f those, which I suppose the later anatom y o f the earth, the privileged role
kind, and o f a fin e turn’d bell-fashion. It may be assigned to survey and drawings, and the
seen in Plate IX . On the west side, he m ade a care devoted to the quality o f excavations.
section from the top to the bottom, an intire seg Stukeley had the advantage o f drawing on a
ment, from center to circumference. T he manner o f strong tradition o f landscape studies begun
composition o f the barrow was good earth, quite by C am den and developed by Aubrey.
thro’, except a coat o f chalk o f about two fo o t N oth in g has com e o f his pandruidic theo
thickness, covering it quite over, under the turf. ries but the quality o f his surveys has
H ence it appears, that the m ethod o f making rem ained unequalled until our times.
360
CHAPTER FOUR because a piece o f broken boat, like those o f the

Chinensians, was found on the banks o f Peru?
O N T H E T hose who guess so, seem to m e to be like that

tw o-penny Doctor, who told the sick m an he
R E J E C T I O N OF had eaten an ass, because he saw the dorsers
[panniers] standing under the bed.
THE N A T U R A L
H ugo G rotius sets out a discourse o f the
H I S T O R Y OF MAN originals o f the nations o f A m erica, whom he
derives fro m the Norwegians, who eight hun
dred years ago were carried to Iceland, and went
The long history of mankind
from thence to G reenland; and so from G reen
land, through the lands adjoining, he conjec
ASSESSM ENT OF THE O R IG IN
tured, got to the south parts o f Am erica. Laetius
O F TH E PE O P LIN G OF A M ER IC A
did confute the conjecture o f Grotius. Grotius
B Y IS A A C D E L A P E Y R E R E .
vindicates h im self fro m Laetius, and those
things which in him Laetius had confuted, he
by this absurdity resolved to restore. But, says
TH EY A R E D ECEIV ED WHO D ED U CE THE
he, i f the A m ericans are not G erm ans (the
O R IG IN A L S OT M EN TROM TH E GRAND
N orwegians and G erm ans were with him all
C H ILD REN OF NOAH, GROTIUS, CO N CERN IN G
one) now they shall be the offspring o f one
THE O RIGINAL OF THE NATIONS IN AM ERICA,
nation; which is as much as to believe, with
CONFUTED.
Aristotle, that they were from eternity, or born
It is the m anner o f all men, who search out the o f the earth, as is reported o f the S partan s; or
originals o f nations, to derive them after the o f the ocean, according to H om er; or that
F lo o d from the grandchildren o f N oa h , who there were som e m en before A d a m , as one in
were the grandchildren o f A dam . A n d great France lately dream ed. I f such things, says
men are so earnest in this, (whom I very much he, be believed, I see a great danger im m inen t
p rize, and have in continual respect f o r them) to religion.
that they cut out all their originals out o f this Grotius had a little before read a little dis
block; and either from som e ancient record, or course o f the pre-A dam ites, undigested, and
som e old tradition, or the sim ilitude o f som e old about to be revised, which he under colour o f
and obsolete name, or fro m any other conjec friendship, by and acquaintance had required o f
ture; som e they imagine that landed at such or me, which I frien d ly did communicate to him
such a place, to have been the authors or fathers not that he should abuse m e; nor do I desire to
o f such a nation. A s i f Italus, who fled (for m ake return, or speak ill o f the dead; let him
exam ple) into Italy, and gave a nam e to that keep with him his aspersion, and preserve it in
country, had been the father and author o f all his grave. L e t this be enough, that the fam e o f
the Italians, and that nation had had no inhab the m an, which now goes up and down the
itants before Italus. A s i f the Franks should be world with the creditable report o f diverse and
thought the authors and first founders o f all the high endowments o f learning, deceive not more
French N ation , and that there had been no with the allurements o f his eloquence, and by
Frenchm en before the Fran ks; because the his trappings o f probable conjecture.
Fran ks se iz ed upon France, and changed the Grotius argues thus. T he N orwegians landed
nam e oj the province, and o f G a llia m ade it in Greenland. T hey went forw ard from G reen
Francia. M ust needs Peru be thought to have land to A m erica. T herefore the N orwegians
had their original from the Chinensians, were the authors o f the nations in Am erica. L et
361
THE D ISC OV ERY OF T H E PAST
us grant, that Grotius took the right way o f m eans he perceived the original sin o f A dam
proving this, and that all were true he built was by this doctrine quite overthrown; because
upon this ground. Certainly, i f A m erica must it is the common consent o f all divines, that
needs be p eo p led by the G reenlanders, which only by traduction it could pass upon all men.
were likeivise N orwegians; he must prove first, This then I must prove, and this is only my
according to his own ground, and first o f all task, to m ake it appear that we needed not
that the Norwegians, who first lighted upon it, A dam for our Father, nor traduction o f A dam
fou n d it empty, and only the winds blowing to m ake us partakers of his sin, as we needed
upon the leaves in those countries, whence he not that Christ should be our Father, and his
might gather this conclusion, that the N orw e traduction should m ake us partakers oj that
gians first plan ted Greenland, who afterwards grace which is by Christ, and all the following
straying about the world, strewed colonies over book shall be o f this, which shall begin with the
all A m erica, and to the A m ericans and the end o f this.
G reenlanders should be indeed the posterity of (Isaac de Lapeyrere, M en Before A d am , 1656.)
the N orwegians, I say he ought fir s t to have
It was apropos o f the question o f the p eo
proved, that the G reenlanders were the off
pling o f A m erica that Lapeyrere passed
spring o f the N orwegians, before he should
from the purely th eolo gical area o f his
guess that the Am ericans were sprung from the
thought to a geographical and archaeologi
Greenlanders, and o f the sam e stock o f Norway.
cal discussion. Jose de Acosta had suggested
It is most certain that the Norwegians first
in 1590 that A m erica had been first settled
landed upon G reenland in the eastern parts o f
by populations o f Asiatic origin. T h e D u tch
it, rough and wild, which the N orwegians
geographer H ugo Grotius, a few decades
called Ostreburg, going to find out the western
later, advocated a N ordic o rig in . In the
parts better habitable, which they call Westre-
course of his visit to C openhagen
burg, fou nd it full o f all m anner o f herds and
Lapeyrere discovered N ordic antiquities
cattle as also full o f the men o f that climate,
and the w ork o f W o rm . H e could thus
whom they called Schlegringians, who beat off
attack the theories o f the em inent geogra
the N orwegians, falling upon their quarters
pher and pose the question o f a human his
with a great slaughter. A true and faithful nar
tory longer than that o f know n history. T h e
rative o f which is in the G reenland Chronicle
recourse to archaeological argum ent is one
written in D anish, which is in the hands o f the
o f the m ilestones o f progress in the intel
m ost fam ous G aum inus, skilfu l in all lan
lectual debate over scientific discussion
guages, which I also kn ew in D en m ark. T he
based on proof.
N orw egians were there strangers, not the
founders o f the Greenlanders, much less o f the
Americans.
[ .. .] But what would Grotius say, i f he were The ‘spy o f the Grand Seigneu r’
now alive, and should read that the Schle
gringians were there, and inhabited G reenland
A ‘S P Y ’ W ITH A G R E A T TASTE
before the Norwegians came? W hat m anner o f F O R A N TIQ U ITIES.
men would he say they were? W ould he say
they were from eternity, or sprung from G reen
land itself, or cast out by the ocean upon land, L etter to W illiam Vospel, an Austrian m onk,
or founded by another than A dam ? If any such o n the discovery o f the tom b o f C hilderic
thing be believed says he, religion is in danger. accom panying the sending o f a cabinet o f
T h e danger that he saw, was, that by this antiquities.
362
A s for what thou desirest to know, concerning the I perceive thou art groum a great antiquary;
sepulchre o f K ing Childeric, it is esteem ed a and therefore in token o f my esteem, I have sent
piece of great antiquity, in regard he was a fourth thee a cabinet o f such old things as I have
monarch o f France. Fie reigned over the Gauls or scraped together in my travels, and during my
Franks in the year 4 5 8 , Severus being Emperor residence in this city
o f Rome, Severinus and Degalaiphus, Consuls. T he agates which you will find in the upper
Yet in little more than three years, he was most drawer, may easily be dated by their figures,
deposed, and banished by his subjects, whilst which are all after the fashion o f G entile Rom e.
/ Egidius, a R om an, was crowned in his stead. A s for the shells in the second, 1 leave them to
N either did this man please the people so well, thy own judgem ent; only this I will say, that
but that after som e experience o f his profession, they are not common. T he third contains a mis
avarice, and other vices, they expelled him also, cellany o f several antiques. T he knives were used
and recalled their lawful sovreign. For Algidius by the ancient R om an priests in their sacrifices.
had vexed them with unreasonable taxes, fleecing T he weights are at least twelve hundred years
them o f many millions, which he privately sent old, by the parallels which I have seen in the
out o f the kingdom, disposing o f this vast trea king’s library. The rings are also o f the Parthian
sure at Rom e, and among his friends in other m ake, and the arrow to which they are fastened
parts, as a support against future contingencies: retains its oriental venom to this hour; as thou
for he looked for som e backblows o f fate. wilt, find, by trying it on any anim al that
Childeric therefore being restored to his crown, deserves it. But after all, the lowermost drawer
enjoyed it till his death, which was in the year contains nothing but counterfeits, for those
4 8 4 . A fter whom succeeded in the kingdom , m edals are the work of P arm ezan, the finest
CJodovaus the Great, who was the first French engraver in the world.
king that embraced Christianity. (Giovanni Paolo Marana, I'hc E ight Volumes of
T he time when C h ild eric’s tomb was first Letters W rit by a Turkish Spy, who L iv ed F iv e an d l-'orty
discovered, was about two years ago, when the Years Undiscovered at Paris, translated bv William
C athedral ofTournay wanted reparation. For as Bradshaw, London, 1748.)
the labourers were digging up the old charnel- T h e ‘spy o f the Grand Seigneur’, protected
house, they encountered a long stone; which by his status as a subject o f the Sultan,
giving them som e fatigue, they broke in pieces, could w rite things w hich could only be
and found under it the entire skeleton o f a man, w hispered in the privacy o f free-th in kin g
lying at length, with abundance o f G reek salons: he was bo th an antiquary fond o f
m edals o f gold and som e other curiosities of the objects and ‘shells’ and a critic not deceived
sam e metal, among which was a ring with this by biblical chronology.
m otto: SIGILLU M CH ILD ER 1CI R E G IS . A ll o f
these relics were at first possessed by the canons
o f that church, where they were found; o f whom
they were begged by the A rch-D u ke o f Austria, On the origin of art
who has them in his custody. Therefore, those
who told them they are in the king of France’s
JO H A N N JO A C H IM W IN C K E L M A N N
hands were misinformed themselves, or designed AND TH E B IR T H OF ART H IS T O R Y .
to abuse thee. For this cannot be supposed,
during the present war between France and
Spain, when they are more ready on both sides (a) In the infancy o f art., its productions are, like
to plunder one another, than to grant, civilities o f the handsomest, of human beings at birth, mis
this obliging nature. shapen, and similar one to another, like the seeds
363
o f plants o f entirely different kinds; but in its

bloom and decay, they resemble those mighty
streams, which at the point where they should be
the broadest, either dwindle into small rivulets, or
totally disappear.
T he art o f drawing am ong the Egyptians is
to be com pared to a tree which, though well
cultivated, has been checked and arrested in its
grow th by a worm , or other casualties; f o r it
rem ained unchanged, precisely the sam e, yet Plan o f the site o f Le Chatellier, made for the
w ithout attaining its perfection, until the Com te de Caylus.
p eriod when G reek kings held sway over them ;

and the case appears to have been the sam e m aterials upon which it w orked; and lastly, o f
with Persian art. Etruscan art, w hen in its the influence o f clim ate upon it.
bloom , m ay be com pared to a raging stream, A rt com m enced with the sim plest shape,
rushing furiously along between crags and over and by working in clay, consequently, with a
rocks; for the characteristics of its drawing are sort of statuary; for even a child can give a cer
hardness and exaggeration. B ut, am ong the tain form to soft mass, though unable to draw
G reeks, the art o f drawing resem bles a river anything on a surface, because merely an idea
w hose clear waters flo w in numerous windings o f an object is sufficient f o r the form er, whereas
through a fertile vale, and f i l l its channel, yet f o r the latter much other know ledge is requi
do not overflow. site; but painting was afterwards em ployed to
A s art has been devoted principally to the em bellish sculpture.
representation o f m an, we m ight say o f him
more correctly than Protagorus did, that ‘he is (b) I have already overstepped the boundaries
the m easure and rule o f all things’. T h e most o f the history o f art, and in m editating upon
ancient records also teach us, that the earliest its downfall have felt alm ost like the historian
essays, especially in the drawing o f figures, have who, in narrating the history o f his native
represented, not the m anner in which a man land, is com pelled to allude to its destruction,
appears to us, but what he is; not a view o f his o f which he was a witness. Still, I could not
body, but the outline o f his shadow. From this refrain from searching into the fate o f works o f
sim plicity o f shape the artist next proceeded to art as far as my eye could reach; just as a
ex am in e proportion s; this inquiry taught m aiden, standing on the shore o f the ocean,
ex a ctn ess;.the exactness hereby acquired gave follow s with tearful eyes her departing lover
confidence, and afterwards success, to his with no hope o f ever seeing him again, and
endeavours after grandeur, and at last gradually fancies that in the distant sail she sees the
raised art am ong the G reeks to the highest image o f her beloved. L ik e that loving m aiden
beauty. A fter all the parts constituting grandeur we too have, as it were, nothing but a shadow y
and beauty were united, the artist, in seeking outline left o f the object o f our wishes, but that
to em bellish them, fell into the error o f profuse very indistinctness aw ak en s on ly a m ore
ness; art consequently lost its grandeur; and the earn est longing fo r w hat we have lost, and
loss was fin a lly fo llo w ed by its utter downfall. w e study the copies o f the origin als m ore
T h e follow ing is, in a few words, the design a tten tively than we sh o u ld have don e the
o f this treatise on the history o f art. In the first origin als them selves if we h a d been in fu ll
place, I shall speak, generally, o f the shape with possession oj them . In this p articu lar we are
which art com m enced; next, o f the different very much lik e those w ho ivish to have an
364
in terview with spirits, and who believe that antiquities, however, are not always to be found,
they see them when there is nothing to be and since it is tedious to spend time and money
seen. In a sim ilar m anner the authority o f in vain, the idea behind these pages is to provide
antiquity predeterm in es our judgm ents yet, the reader with sincerely useful instructions
even this prepossession has been not without grounded on manifold experience.
its advantages; for he who always proposes to T he remarkable ruins used to be places o f sac
h im s elf to fin d m u ch w ill by seek in g for rifice, where, at special times, the inhabitants o f
much perceive som ething. If the ancients had whole villages or districts would congregate, sacri
been poorer in art they w ould have written fice, feast and dance.
better o f it. We are, com pared to them , like Their exploration is laborious and dangerous,
poorly portion ed heirs; but we look carefully they promise a lot, but keep little or nothing. Pro
about us, and by deductions from m any partic thesauro carbones fcoals instead o f treasure]:
ulars we arrive at least at a probable certainty accordingly, there aren’t any graves. W hat can be
capable o f becoming a source o f more instruc found, however, above a layer o f coal and topped
tion than the details bequ eathed to us by the up by ashes and earth, are flintstone wedges, the
ancients, for, with the exception o f a few critical so-called sacrificial knives, fragments o f sacrificial
observations, they are merely historical. We bowls and pots. Now, may any theory be derived
must not shrink from seeking after the truth, from that?
even though its discovery wounds our self Nearby, the already m entioned hills, those
esteem ; a few must go wrong that the many form ing a long square and being fenced with big
may g o right. stones (the biggest one usually lying eastwards),
(j.J. W inckelm ann, T h e H istory of A ncien t A rt am ong very seldom contain urns and used to be sites o f
the Grex'fesJ.R. O sgood and C o., Boston, Mass., public congregation, too. T he circular hills have to
1880 .) be distinguished, though. Som e o f them are
huge; excavating one o f these is so laborious that
W inckelm ann shared w ith Caylus a faith in
the loss is extremely great when nothing can be
a naturalistic and evolutionary vision o f art,
found in it. They must hence be judged by their
but added to his analysis an aesthetic for
appearance. There are stone heaps som ewhat
w hich G reece form ed the unsurpassable
higher and more p eaked than the others; those,
horizon.
on account o f the heavy stones they contain, are
generally sunk two or three feet into the earth,
and often inscribed in a circle o f stones. Excavat
T h e excavations o f M artin Mushard ing those hills one will find only stones, sand and
ashes between them; i.e. om nem move lapi-
d cm fall stones have to be removed]. O ne
U SEFU L IN S T R U C T IO N S A B O U T
always hopes to find the lintel above an urn, but
F IO W T O A V O ID M IS S IN G URNS
W H IL E D IG G IN G FO R TH EM .
in vain. H aving found som e f la t stones which
could perfectly well be lintels and after digging
another four feet without any result, it is better to
Since so little is known o f the oldest times o f this stop the excavation, since in that depth urns
country, at all times a few amateurs in antiquity are unlikely to be found. T hat hill must hence
have endeavoured to deduce from graves the ways be a sacrificial hill. T h o s e hills h a v e com e
oj life and customs of the pagans, and, after satis to that h eig h t through fr e q u e n tly rep ea ted
fying their curiosity to a certain degree, have sacrifices, implying each time a new layer o f
filled thus the collections o f antiquities with urns, stones on top o f which a new fireplace was to be
shields, weapons and all kinds o f utensils. These built on untouched ground. R e lig io n is causa
365
THE D IS C O V ER Y OP T H E PAST
[for religious reasons], they were raised by a con gressively ov ertu rn ed the d ilettantism o f
spiration o f people or, as it were, a community. the treasure-hu nters. T h is essay is one o f
W hoever comes across one of these will find all the first excavation manuals published in
sweat and pain wasted on them. [ . . J Europe.
A n other type o f burial site which bears no
exterior sight o f its contents must be poin ted
out; these are those in the open fields. N ot f a r
from them there usually stands a reminder f o r A letter from Voltaire
the living. T h e urns are to be fou n d at the
western or northern side o f the m onument, the ON TH E O R IG IN OF ‘SH ELLS’ .
closer to it, the more considerable, extrem um
occu p at scabies /the last gets scabies]. I f the Sir,
burial ground is in flat earth, the urns and I have the honour to send you, via Paris, the
utensils will be the best. A s to where they are little book o/ Singularites de la N ature; there
to be found, a shepherd or a plough-m an may are things in this little work which are closely
give the most valuable inform ation. T h e iron analogous to what is happening in your chateau
rod, however, must not be forgotten, because [Voltaire is alluding to the theory of the sponta
from the noise it m akes touching an object, it neous growth of shells developed in La
can be best told, w hether it is a stone or an Sailvagere’s book]: I always resort to Nature,
urn. Concerning the excavation o f the urns, it which is more creative than we, and I challenge
has to be rem arked that the lintel in the tumu all systems. I can see only people who put them
lus can be laid bare as elsewhere, but must not selves directly in the place o f G od, who want to
be hit hard with the spade and by no means create a world by words.
trampled on. T he urn should be dug out side The alleged shell-beds which cover the conti
ways, then cleaned carefully and lifted with nent, the coral formed by insects, the mountains
both hands. Aftenvards it must be left to dry raised by the sea; all o f this seems to me m ade to
for an hour in the fresh air. I f the pot is broken be published as a sequel to A Thousand and
and you wish to restore it, then the fragments O n e N ights.
must be g lu ed together and the cracks filled You seem to me very wise, Sir, in only believ
with the p u lv erized remains of another urn. ing what you see; others believe the opposite of
T he remains [ ...] may be sim ply covered with what they see, or rather, they want, to be taken
earth again. T h e fragments, when heated, are in; h a lf the world has always wanted to deceive
very useful for the removal o f grease spots from the rest; happy is he who has sight and spirit as
clothing. excellent as yours.
(M artin Mushard, H ann oveiisehe Beitydge zuni I have the honour to be, with the most
N ul : cn und Vcrgmigeti, 2, 1 7 6 0 -6 1 .)
respectful esteem,
M artin M ushard (1 6 6 9 —1770) was a north Sir, your most humble and obedient servant,
G erm an pastor like Andreas A lb ert Signed, V O L T A IR E
R h o d e . His passion fo r antiquities led him
(M . F. de La Sauvagere, R ecu eil de dissertation* ou
to undertake a nu m ber o f cem etery exca
recherclws historiques et critiques, postscript by Voltaire,
vations. T his little text published in a p op
Paris, 1776.)
ular cultural review is a good sum m ary o f
G erm an th eo ries o f the tim e. It shenvs the Voltaire’s critical sense did not shield him
e xp ertise o f th e G erm an antiquaries in from a certain scepticism. In an anonymous
c em e tery excav atio n and the em erg en ce article w hich appeared in 1746 in the Mer-
o f a stratigraphical tech n iq u e w h ich pro cure de France he m aintained that the shells
366
and petrified fish found in the mountains its countless revolutions around the star which
were the product o f passing travellers w ho illuminates it; the changing climates, and the
had discarded their leftover food. T his regions above which an overhead sun once blazed
attracted an ironic response from B u ffo n now touched by its oblique transient rays and
w ho suggested that it was m onkeys w ho covered with eternal ice; he gathered wood,
transported shells to the m ountain heights stones, shells; he saiv in our quarries the imprints
and all the other ‘uninhabitable places’ o f plants native to the coast o f India; the plough
(quoted by G ohau, 1990, p. 159). In relying turns up in our fields creatures whose relatives lie
on the works o f the form er director o f the deep in the abyss o f the seas; the man lying to
E n g in e e r C orps, La Sauvagere, Voltaire the north on elephant bones and walking here on
conferred prestige on an author w ho saw the hom e o f the whales; he saw the food o f a pre
the B reto n megaliths as Caesar’s camps. sent world passing over the surface o f a hundred
past worlds; he considered the order which the
layers oj the earth m aintained between them
selves: an order now so regular, now so disturbed,
D iderot’s preface that here the wholly new globe seems to have
come from the hands of the great workm an; there
offering only an ancient chaos trying to sort itself
D ID E R O T ’ S P R E FA C E T O
out; elsewhere only the ruins of a vast fallen edi
L’A N T IQ U IT E D E V O IL E E BY
N IC O L A S A N T O IN E B O U L A N G E R .
fice, rebuilt and collapsed yet again, without so
many successive overthrowings imagination itself
might have retraced the first.
lj any man has ever in his life shown the true This is what gave rise to his first thoughts.
character of genius, it is this one. In the setting of Having considered in all aspects the catastrophes
a domestic persecution which began with life and o f the earth, he sought their effects on its form er
only ended with it; in the setting o f distraction inhabitants; thence his conjectures on societies,
after distraction and the most arduous of tasks, he governments and religions. But he acted to verify
pursued a great career. W hen one leafs through his conjectures by comparing them with tradition
his works one might believe that he had lived for and stories; and he says ‘I have seen, I have
more than a century; however he saw, read, sought to interpret; let us now see what has been
regarded, reflected, meditated, wrote and lived for said and what is.’ So he reached for the Latin
but a m om ent: one could say o f him what authors and realised that he had no Latin; so he
H om er said o f the horses o f the gods: the more learnt it, but it lacked much where he could find
space the eye discovers in the heavens, the more the enlightenm ent he needed: he found the
the celestial steeds can cross with one leap. Latins too ignorant and too recent.
A fter poor, sketchy studies in the state schools, H e turned to the Greeks. H e learnt their lan
he was sent to work on the major roads: it was guage and had soon devoured the poets, philoso
there that he spent his time, his health and his phers and historians; but in the G reeks he found
life, in canalising rivers, cutting through m oun only fictions, lies and vanity, a people misrepre
tains and creating the great routes which m ake senting everything to appropriate all; children
France a unique kingdom and will forever char who wallowed in tales o f marvels, where a small
acterise the reign o f Louis X V historical circumstance, a glim m er o f truth would
It was also there that he developed the pre be lost in the prevailing deep gloom , which
cious seed within himself: he saw the multitude inspired the poet, painter and sculptor and which
o f diverse materials which the earth hides within m ade the philosopher despair. H e had no doubt
its bosom and which attests to its antiquity and that there had been earlier and simpler stories,
36 7
and he bravely threw him self into the study o f by D iderot, L e D espotism e oriental, another
the Hebrew, Syriac, C haldean and Arabic lan w ork by B oulanger destined for a long life,
guages, both ancient and modern. W hat work! was published by H olbach in 1761. Even if
W hat perseverence! Such was the knowledge his ideas on the Flood were generally ques
that he acquired when he committed him self to tioned by the Encyclopaedists, Boulanger,
disentangle the mythology. o f w hom B uffon was an avid reader, rapidly
I have often heard him say that the methods w on th eir esteem . H e conversed w ith de
o f our scholars were correct and that had they Jussieu and R ou sseau and con tribu ted to
only had more study and attention, they would the ‘F lo o d ’ and ‘D u ty ’ entries for the Ency
have seen that they were in agreement and could clopaedia. H is w ide-ran ging task envisaged
have shaken hands. H e saw priestly and theo in one way or another the elucidation, via
cratic government as the oldest: he was inclined the humanities, o f the history o f nature.
to believe that savages were descended from wan
dering fam ilies that the terror o f the first great
events had exiled to the forests where they had
lost their ideas o f law, as we have seen in the Je ffe rs o n ’s excavations
Cenobites, who need only a little more solitude
to be transformed into savages.
JEFF ERS ON DESCRIBES
H e said that i f philosophy had found too
T H E E X C A V A T I O N OF A B A R R O W
many obstacles with us, it was because we had
D I S C O V E R E D IN V I R G I N I A IN 1 7 8 1 .
begun where we should have finished, by abstract
maxims, general reasoning, subtle reflections
which revolted by their unfamiliarity and bold I know o f no such thing existing as an Indian
ness, and which might have been accepted p ain m onum ent; for I would not honor with that
lessly had they been preceded by the factu al story. name arrow points, stone hatchets, stone pipes,
(N. A. Boulanger, L ’A n tiqu ite devoilee p a r ses usages and half-shapen images. O f labor on the large
ou E x a m en critique des principales opinions, ceremonies scale, I think there is no remain as respectable as
et institutions religieuses et politiqu es des differents w ould be a common ditch for the draining o f
peu p les de la iette. Amsterdam, 1756, pp.V—V II and lands; unless indeed it would be the barrows, o f
pp. 2 3 - 7 . )
which many are to be found all over this coun
N icolas A ntoine B oulanger (1722—59) was try. These are o f different sizes, som e o f them
one o f the most original minds o f the eight constructed o f earth, and som e o f loose stones.
eenth century. H e belonged to the group o f T hat they were repositories o f the dead, has
bridge-builders w hose con tribution to the been obvious to all; but on what particular occa
understanding o f French antiquities was sion constructed, was a matter o f doubt. Som e
decisive. A m ongst them was H enri Gautier have thought they covered the bones o f those
(1 6 6 0 - 1 7 3 7 ), successor o f B ergier, author who have fallen in battles fought on the spot o f
o f a Traite de la construction des chemins ou il interment. Som e ascribed them to the custom,
est parle de ceux des R om ains et de ceux des said to prevail among the Indians, o f collecting,
M odernes (Paris, 1693), one o f the most fer at certain periods, the bones o f all of their dead,
vent advocates o f a lo n g chronology, dis wheresoever deposited at the time o f death.
coverer o f a tecto n ic w h ich built on and O thers again su pposed them the gen eral
surpassed the ideas o f Steno and Legendre, sepulchres for towns, conjectured to have been
bro th er o f Sop hie Volland, the friend o f on or near these grounds; and this opinion was
D iderot, tireless discoverer o f m onum ents. supported by the quality o f the lands in which
Ju st as L A n tiq u ite devoilee was proclaim ed they are found, (those constructed o f earth being
368
generally in the softest and most fertile meadow- the bone which serves as a base to the vertebral
grounds on river sides,) and by a tradition, said column jthe os-sacrumf. T he sculls ivere so
to be handed doum from the aboriginal Indians, tender, that they generally fell to pieces on being
that, when they settled in a town, the first touched. T he other bones ivere stronger. There
person who died was placed erect, and earth put tvere some teeth which ivere judged to be smaller
about him, so as to cover and support him ; that than those o f an adult; a scull, which, on a
when another died, a narrow passage was dug to slight view, appeared to be that o f an infant, but
the first, the second reclined against him, and it fell to pieces on being taken out, so as to p re
the cover o f earth replaced, and so on. There vent satisfactory exam ination; a rib, and a frag
being one o f these in my neighborhood, I wished m ent of the under-jaw o f a person about h a lf
to satisfy m yself whether any, and which of these grown; another rib o f an infant; and a part o f
opinions were just. For this purpose I deter the jaw o f a child, which had not cut its teeth.
m ined to open and exam ine it thoroughly. It This last furnishing the most decisive p ro o f o f
was situated on the low grounds o f the the burial o f children here, I was particular in
R ivanna, about two miles above its principal my attention to it. It was part o f the right h a lf
fork, and opposite to some hills, on which had of the under-jaw. T he processes, by which it was
been an Indian town. It was o f a spheroidical attenuated to the temporal bones, were entire,
form, o f about forty feet diam eter at the base, and the bone itself firm to where it had been
and had been o f about twelve feet altitude, broken off, which, as nearly as I could judge, was
though now reduced by the plough to seven and about the place o f the eye-tooth. Its upper edge,
a half, having been under cultivation about a wherein would have been the sockets, o f the
dozen years. Before this it was covered with trees teeth, was perfectly smooth. M easuring it with
o f twelve inches diameter, and round the base that of an adult, by placing their hinder
was 1in excavation of five feet depth and width, processes together, its broken end extended to the
from whence the earth had been taken of which penultim ate grinder of the adult. This bone was
the hillock was formed. I first dug superficially white, all the others of a sand color. T he bones o f
in several parts o f it, and came to collections of infants being soft, they probably decay sooner,
human bones, at different depths, from six inches which m ight be the cause so few ivere found
to three feet below the surface. These were lying here. I proceeded then to m ake a perpendicular
in the utmost confusion, som e vertical, som e cut through the body o f the barrow, that I might
oblique, som e horizontal, and directed to every exam ine its internal structure. This passed about
poin t o f the compass, entangled and held three feet from its centre, was opened to the
together in clusters by the earth. Bones o f the form er surface of the earth, and was wide
most distant parts were found together, as, for enough for a man to walk through and exam ine
instance, the sm all bones of the foot in the its sides. A t the bottom, that is, on the level o f
hollow o f a scull; many sculls would sometimes the circumjacent plain , I found bones; above
be in contact, lying on the face, on the side, on these a few stones, brought from a cliff a quarter
the back, top or bottom, so as, on the whole, to of a mile off, and from the river one-eighth o f a
give the idea o f bones em ptied promiscuously mile off; then a large interval o f earth, then a
from a bag or a basket, and covered over with stratum of bones, and so on. A t one end o f
earth, ivithont any attention to their order. The the section ivere four strata o f bones p lain ly
bones of which the greatest numbers remained, distinguishable; at the other, three; the strata
were sculls, jaw -bon es, teeth, the bones of the in one part not ranging with those in another.
arms, thighs, legs, feet and hands. A few ribs The bones nearest the surface ivere least
remained, some vertebrae of the neck and spine, decayed. N o holes were discovered in any o f
ivithont their processes, and one instance only o f them, as if m ade with bullets, arrows, or other
3 69
weapons. I conjectured that in this barrow might A ccording Co M o rtim er W heeler, the father
have been a thousand skeletons. Everyone will o f the m odern stratigraphical m ethod, this
readily seiz e the circumstances above related, text by Jefferso n (1 7 4 3 -1 8 2 6 ) was one o f
which militate against the opinion, that it covered the most astounding testaments o f the birth
the bones only o f persons fallen in battle; and o f stratigraphical archaeology at the end o f
against the tradition also, which would m ake it the eighteenth century. Jefferso n ’s antiquar
the common sepulchre o f a town, in which the ian interest was fostered in France betw een
bodies were placed upright, and touching each 1784 and 178 9 , w hen he was the U n ited
other. Appearances certainly indicate that it has States’ ambassador, by con tact w ith David
derived both origin and growth from the accus- and reading W inckelm ann. W ith the friend
tomary collection o f bones, and deposition o f o f the latter, the painter C lerisseau, w ho
them together; that the first collection had been w rote Les A ntiquites de la France (Paris,
deposited on the common surface o f the earth, a 1 778), he visited Provence and admired the
few stones pu t over it, and then a covering of antique m onum ents, especially the M aison
earth, that the second had been laid on this, C arree at N im es. Elected President o f the
had covered more or less of it in proportion to U n ited States in 180 0 , he was to b ecom e
the number o f bones, and was then also covered the most ardent advocate o f the N eo-classi
with earth; and so on. T he follow ing are the cal style in his country. In 1799, as president
particular circumstances which give it this aspect. o f the A m erican Philosophical Association,
1. T he number of bones. 2. Their confused posi he con tacted all the A ssociation’s co rre
tion. 3. T heir being in different strata. 4. The sponding m em bers, asking for reports on all
strata in one part having no correspondence with the archaeological sites that they m ight
those in another. 5. T he different states o f decay know o f (W illey and Sabloff, 198 0 , pp.
in these strata, which seem to indicate a differ 2 8 - 9 ) . Sadly, his influence, like that o f his
ence in the time o f inhum ation. 6. T he existence European contem poraries, did not achieve
o f infant bones among them. a wide audience until the second h alf o f
(Thom as |efferson, N otes on the State of Virginia,

the century.
Harper and R ow , N ew York and London, 1964.)
3 70
CHAPTER FIVE according to us, our history did not commence

there. It is in traversing the soil o f civilisation,
TH E I N V E N T I O N it is in penetrating to the Celtic soil, that we

find the cradle o f our fathers, or the earth trod
OF A R C H A E O L O G Y den by the prim ordial population o f Gauls.
In this study these beings who are no more,
The first inhabitants of Gaul their su perim posed traces, a sort o f scale o f
passing days, will be our historical tablets,
because the dust o f ages can hardly be im pro
BO U CH ER DE PER TH ES M AKES A
vised and the colour o f the centuries is inim
G E O L O G IC A L C H R O N O L O G Y P O S S IB L E .
itable.
I f there were antediluvian men, their traces
B efore speaking o f the work, it is worth saying can exist.
a few words about the workers, because it is W ithout leaving the place w here we are,
their age which serves us to determ ine that o f when digging down som e fe e t , we encounter
their industry. the debris o f another epoch with other customs,
R eceived opinion is that this part o f Europe other m onum ents, other weather, other m en;
in which we live is a new land and newly when som e feet lower we find another age and
occupied. Its annals hardly exten d to twenty also other peoples, w ho can say if, in going even
centuries: its m em ories and traditions extend further down, if in penetrating the entrails o f
no further back than two thousand fiv e hun an earth devastated by so m any catastrophes,
dred years. we should not acquire the p r o o f that what was
T h e excellent works by M m . de C aum ont at the surface is today at the centre and that
and A rnedee Thierry do not even take them so the interm ediate landscapes, or the im m ense
f a r hack and the p eoples who have occupied or regions covered by the m arine depths, do not
m erely p assed through G allic lands — the hide from us the m onum ents and debris o f
G auls, the Celts, the B elgae, the Venetii, the unknow n peoples.
Ligurians, the A qu itan i or Iberians, the Kimris T he convulsions which have overturned our
or C ym bri, the Scythians — have not left any plan et are proven; is it equally so that at each
remains to which this date might be assigned. o f these revolutions, it was w ithout hum an
T his system is perfectly based w here the creatures? From the first cataclysms, no trace o f
great m onum ents are concerned because tradi life. In those which follow ed one finds the
tion rests with them. T hese m onum ents would remains o f marine animals, then terrestrial veg
have struck the eyes o f our ancestors, and their etation, then saurians, then m am m als, then
ruins would strike ours as they are still struck nothing again: all have perished, the earth is
by those o f the A siatic cities and the structures deserted, it is only after an indefinite period
called Pelagic and C yclopean. W hilst one does that one sees the reappearance o f new species
not kn ow the history o f these nor even with which perish in their turn after the great
real certainty that o f their builders, what destruction called the universal Flood.
remains indicates, if not the precise instant o f W hether this traditional F lood corresponds
their construction, at least the period of civilisa to the geolog ical flo o d , o f the clysm ian or
tion to which they are attached; and, when dilu vian ep o ch ; w hether they fo r m one and
they belong to that civilisation, they are part of the sam e catastrophe, w hether they m ark one
w hat we would consider the antique period. We an d the sam e p erio d , is a seriou s qu estion
thus have nothing to say o f present-day France that we shall not un dertake to treat: we only
or even o f R om an or G aulish France because, wish to say that it was an im m ense and fin a l
371
cataclysm w hose tradition has rem ained with that M . B aillon and
most peoples. my father, who both
So we all agree on it, m en lived. B u t for figure am ong the
how much time have they lived and how many founders o f this Soci
sim ilar upheavals have they experienced? Tra ety, reported a deposit
dition does not say: how could it have said, i f o f diluvian bones in
the destruction was total? this quarry; and, in
T h at in each o f these terrible events, the effect, a near-complete
surface o f the globe had been swept clean and rhinoceros skeleton,
renewed is w hat geology shows us; but it shows and subsequently,
equally that nothing is lost and that one Antediluvian stones. numerous remains o f
Boucher de Perthes.
retrieves in succession the remains o f these elephants and other
1847.
diverse epochs. anim als have been
T hese traces, have they all been perceived on collected and sent to the museum in Paris and
the sam e day? N o, it is only little by little and to that in this town w here you can still see
only in our own time that they have been them. O h well! Sirs, in these sands, at a depth
reported in a positive way. o f about eight metres amongst these sam e ante
O n this p ath o f discovery we are only at the diluvian bones have been fo u n d traces o f the
poin t o f departure. So why say that we have work o f man, flint axes which I still submit for
reached the end o f the voyage? B ecause we your exam ination with all the circumstances o f
have lifted a corner o f the veil, must we con discovery.
clude that we have seen all that the veil con T hat the axes have the sam e age as the
ceals? We know today that at the m om ent o f bones, I cannot confirm; their origin could be
each o f these revolutions there existed m any later just as they could be earlier. W hat I only
anim als: it is a truth dem onstrated by the m aintain as probable is that they were there
heaps o f bones in the diluvial deposits. These since the bones were, and that they were there
deposits were unknow n to us a hundred years by the sam e cause. It is now fo r geology to
ago; and at the beginning o f this century we determ ine the epoch to which the deposit
did not kn ow a quarter o f the antediluvian belongs.
species that we know today. Perhaps in thirty T his fact is not unique. Q uite recently, in
years we shall know o f more. [ ...] the month o f last Ju ly, a hundred steps from
To overturn all the acquired data, or those here, in the bed oj flin t exposed behin d the
theories which rest far less on facts than on hospital garden, between the C h am p -d e Foire
words and induction, then it is sufficient, as and the rue M illevoye, in a location recognised
M .A le x . Brogniart says, for one fortunate inci as diluvean by several geologists and notably
dent, one o f those unexpected encounters which by M m . R avin and B uteux, who have m ade
are nonetheless convincing. an in-depth investigation of it, a location o f
W ho even knows i f it is not here, under our which I will equally give you the analysis, I
feet and in these places, that there exists the have fo u n d several other w orked flints.
evidence o f this antiquity o f the works o f man O ne could say that the pieces arrived there
and o f an antiquity which surpasses all expec by som e accident posterior to the form ation o f
tations! You have all, sirs, visited, at the gate o f the bed.
A bbeville, on the right o f the B oulogne road For me, sirs, who has closely exam in ed their
and on that to Laviers, the M enchecourt sand- position and p robably for all those who will
quarries. F or som e years, building sand has want to study it with me, this posteriority is an
been extracted. It is more than thirty years ago im possible thing. If the bed is diluvian, and I
372
do not doubt it, these implem ents are diluvian; men are older on earth than one had commonly
and it is necessary to believe in the existence o f believed, their monuments must also be so, or, in
a p eop le whose antiquity far exceeds those o f default of monuments, their utensils and
w hom tradition tell us. Now, this antiquity weapons.
and this existence, we will demonstrate to you (B oucher de Perthes, A ntiqu ites celtiques et
by the evidence. I f I had som e doubts about the antcdiluviennes , 1847, 1, chap. 2, pp. 16—32.)
M anchecourt axes and about their origin, the
B o u ch er de Perthes was less cautious than
discovery o f these has dissipated them.
T ho m sen and rem ained convinced, follow
I know that here again the evidence could be
ing Cuvier, o f the idea o f a universal Flood.
denied. It is impossible, one will say: human ves
However, his cultural background as a man
tiges, utensils, worked flin t axes cannot be found
o f the E nlightenm en t encouraged a reread
among diluvian debris. I can only reply: it is so,
ing o f the ancient authors and especially o f
and it must be, because it would be stranger were
Lucretius. H e com b in ed a philosophical
it not so; and I will not cease to repeat: since
approach to the hum an condition from the
there were men at that time, since tradition says
G reek in h eritan ce to observation o f the
so, since reflection proves it, since finally no one
soil and the desire to construct a geological
denies it, what then is surprising about their
tim e-scale w h ich overturned the idea o f
traces being recovered? O ne is the consequence o f
history as accepted at the start o f the nine
the other.
teenth century. In ju st referring to the idea
L et one admit even that these men were few
o f hum an evolution he w on a greater
in number; however sm all this number, it was
public than his Scandinavian predecessors
sufficient to brush aside all absolute denial; and
and becam e m ore the fou n d er o f a new
if there were only a single people, only a single
discipline than the discoverer o f a new
family, only a single couple, one could not say
technique o f classifying the artefacts found
with certainty; their remains will never be fou nd.
in the earth.
We must then return to this conclusion; if
373
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Carl Bernhard Stark’s System atik und Geschichte der A ufrere 1990
A rchdologie der K u n st was published in Leipzig in Sydney H. Aufrere, L a M om ie et la Tempete, Nicolas
1880 and was the most scholarly and comprehensive C laude Fabri dc Peiresc et la memoire egyptienne en
Provence au debut du X V U em e siecle, Barthelemy,
o f the histories o f archaeology, apart from the fact
Avignon, 1990.
that it was limited to classical archaeology. More than
B a co n 1627
a century later, such a biographical/bibliographical
Francis Bacon, Sylva Sylvarum or a Natural H istory in
exercise would appear totally excessive. T he
Ten Centuries, London, 1627.
bibliography presented here is thus limited: it only
B a co n 1868
includes titles cited in the body o f the text and some
Francis Bacon, Physical an d M etaphysical Works
works o f synthesis. At the time o f writing the most
including the A dvancem ent o f Learning an d N ovum
complete general bibliographies are to be found in Organum, ed. Joseph Dewey, London 1868.
Hildebrandt 1937, Daniel 1978, Bouzek et al. 1983
B eau n e 1985
andTrigger 1 9 8 9 .They need to be completed by the Colette Beaune, N aissance de la nation France,
works o f W illey and Sabloff 1980 for America and Gallimard, Paris, 1985.
Chang 1986 for China. Glyn Daniel has provided a B e rc e 1986
list o f the main archaeological anthologies in his Francoise Berce, ‘Arcisse de Caumont et les societes
book o f 1978.W hat I offer in this collection is savantes’, in P. Nora (ed.), Les L ieu x de memoire, II, 2,
restricted to some perhaps little-known texts and L a N ation , Gallimard, Paris, 1986, pp. 533—94.
serves no other purpose than to emphasise certain B erg h au s 1983
aspects treated in the body o f this volume. M y Peter Berghaus (ed.), D er Archaologue, G raphische
information owes a lot to Stemmermann 1934, Bildnisse aus dem Portratarchiv Diepenbroick,
Gummel 1938, Abramowicz 1983,Settis 1984 and Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe, Munster, 1983.
Pinon 1991. M y debt to the works o f Glyn Daniel B e rg ie r 1622
and Stuart Piggott is also evident. Nicolas Bergier, H istoire des grands chemins de VEmpire
romain, Paris, 1622.
B ian ch in i 1697
Abdessalam 1970 Francesco Bianchini, L a istoria universale provata con
Chadi Abdessalam (director), T h e N ight o f Counting monumenti e figurata con sim boli , R om e,
the Years, film better known as T h e M um m y, 1970. 1697 (1747 edition).
A bel 1939 B ied erm an n 1890
Othenio Abel, V orzeitlicheTierreste im Deutschen W. von Biedermann, G oethes Gesprache, 7,
Mythus, Brauchtum und Volksglauben, Fischer, Jena, 1 8 2 9 - 1 8 3 0 , Leipzig 1890.
1939.
B o rg es 1964
A b ra m o w icz 1983 Jorge Luis Borges,‘T h e Wall and the Books’, in O ther
Andrzej Abramowicz, D z ie je Zainteresowan Inquisitions 1 9 3 7 -1 9 5 2 , University ofTexas Press,
starozytniczych w Polsce (The History o f Austin, 1964.
Antiquarianism in Poland), 2 volumes, Polska
B orges 1981
akademia Nauk,W roclaw, 1983—7.
Jorge Luis Borges,‘O f Exactitude in Science’, in
A d h e m a r 1937 A Universal History o f Infam y , Penguin,
Jean Adhemar, Influences antiques dans I’art du M oyen Harmondsworth, 1981.
A ge frangais, recherche sur les sources et les themes
B o rg es 1985
d ’inspiration, T he Warburg Institute, London, 1937.
Jorge Luis Borges, ‘T lon , Uqbar, Orbis Tertius’, in
A g o stin o 1587 Fictions, J o h n Calder, London, 1985.
Antonio Agostino, D ialogos de M edallas, inscriciones y
B o u c h e r de Perth es 1847
otras antiguedades, Tarragona, 1587.
Jacques Boucher de Perthes, Antiquites celtiques et
A rm ita g e R o b in so n 1926 antediluviennes, M em oire sur I'industrie primitive et les
J. Armitage R obinson, Two Glastonbury Legends, King arts a leur origine ,Treuttel etW iirtz, Paris, 1847—64.
A rthur and St Jo s e p h ofA rim ath ea, Cambridge
B o u lan g er 1756
University Press, Cambridge, 1926.
Nicolas Antoine Boulanger, L A n tiq u ite devoilee p ar
A u brey 1 9 8 0 -8 2 ses usages ou Exam ert critiquc des p rin cip als opinions,
John Aubrey, M onum enta Britannica, ed. R . Legg and ceremonies et institutions religieuses et politiques des
J. Fowles, D orset Publishing Company, K no-N a-C re, differents peuples de la terre,Amsterdam, 1756.
M ilborne Port, 1 9 8 0 -8 2 . B o u rd ie r 1993
A u frere 1936 Marc Bourdier, ‘Le M ythe et I’industrie ou la
Louis Aufrere, E ssai sur les prem ieres decouvertes de protection du patrimoine culturel au Japon’, in
Boucher de Perthes et les origines de Varcheologie primitive Geneses, Sciences sociales et Histoire, no. 11,1993,
(1 8 3 8 —1 8 4 4 ), L. Staude, Paris, 1936. pp. 8 2 -1 1 0 .
374
BIBLIOGRAPHY
B o u z e k et al 1983 C olt H o are 1 8 1 0 -1 2

Jan Bouzek, Miroslav Buchvaldek, Philippos Richard C olt Hoare, T h e History o f A ncient Wiltshire,
Kostomitsopoulos and Karel Sklenar, D ejiny London, 1810—12.
archeologie (History o f Archaeology), 2 volumes,
C on stantine 1984
Editions pedagogiques de FEtat, Prague, 1983—4. David Constantine, Early G reek 'travellers and the
D e B ro glie 1891 H ellenic Ideal, Cambridge University Press,
Emmanuel de Broglie, L a Societe de Vabbaye de Saint- Cambridge, 1984.
G ertnain-des-Pres au X V IIIem e siecle, Bernard de C o o p e r 1977
M ontfaucon et les Bernardins, Plon, Paris, 1891.
Richard C ooper,‘Rabelais and the topographia
B ro w n e 1658 antiquae R om ae o f Marliano’, in Travaux d ’hum anism e
Thomas Browne, H ydriotaphia, Urn Buriall, or, et de Renaissance, C L X II, Droz, Geneva, 1977,
A Discourse o f the Sepulchrall Urnes lately foun d in pp. 7 1 -8 7 .
N o r f o l k . London, 1658 (ed. EL. Huntley Meredith, C o o p er 1988
N ew York, 1966). Richard Cooper,‘Humanistes et antiquaires a Lyon',
B ru n o 1879 in 11 Rinasciniento a L ion e,A tti del Congresso
Giordano Bruno, O pera L atin a Conscripta, internazionale, Edizioni dell’Ateneo, R om e, 1988,
F. Fiorentino et al., Naples, 1 8 7 9 -9 1 ,1 ,2 . pp. 161—74.
B u ckland 1823 C uvier 1801
W illiam Buckland, R eliqu iae diluvianae, Joh n Murray, Georges C uvier,‘Extrait d’un ouvrage sur les especcs
L o n d o n ,1823. de quadrupedes dont on a trouve les ossements dans
B uffon 1776 rintcrieur do la terre...’, in Jou rn a l de physique,
G.L. Leclerc de Buffon, D es epoques de la nature, 1801, LIT, pp. 2 5 3 -7 .
vol. X X I X (1776) o f H istoire naturelle generate et C uvier 1841
particuliere, Paris, 1749—1804. Georges Cuvier, Histoire des sciences naturelles, depuis
Cassin 1969 leur origine ju squ ’a nos jours, chez tons les peuples connus,
Elena Cassin,‘Cycles du temps et Cadres de l’espace Fortin, Paris, 1841.
en Mesopotamie ancienne’,in R evue de synthese, D aniel 1978
no. 5 6 ,1 9 6 9 , pp. 2 4 2 -7 . Glyn Daniel, 15 0 Years of A rchaeology, Duckworth,
London, 1978.
Caylus 1752
Anne Claude Francois de Caylus, Recueil d ’antiquites D aniel 1981
egyptiennes, etrusques, grecques et romaines, 7 volumes, Glyn Daniel, Towards a H istory o f Archaeology,
Pans, 1 7 5 2 -5 7 . Thames and Hudson, London, 1981.
C h an g 1986 D aniel and R enfrew 1986
Kwang-chih Chang, T he Archaeology of A ncient C hin a, Glyn Daniel and Colin Renfrew, T h e Idea o f
Yale University Press, New Haven and London, Prehistory, Edinburgh University Press, 1986.
1986 (4). D arw in 1887
Chavannes 1967 Francis Darwin (ed.), T h e L ife an d Letters o f C harles
Edouard Chavannes, L es M emoires historiques de D anvin, Including an A utobiographical C hapter,
S e-m a Ts'ien, Librairie d’Amerique et d’Orient, John Murray, London, 1887.
Paris, 1967. D om b rovsk i 1979
C h en g Y on g and L i T on g 1983 Yuri Dombrovski, L e Conservateur des antiquites,
Cheng Yong and Li T ong,‘Studies o f the Mercury Julliard, Paris, 1979.
Interred in Qin Shi Huan’sTom b’, in K A O G U D ubois 1972
(Archaeology), 7, 1983. Claude Gilbert Dubois, C eltes et G aulois au X V Iem e
C heynier 1936 siecle: le developpem ent litteraire d ’un m ythe nationaliste,
Andre Cheynier, Jouannet grand-pere de la prehistoire, Vrin, Paris, 1972.
Societe archeologique du Perigord, Brive, 1936. E sp er 1774
Chippindale 1983 J.F. Esper, Description des zoolithes nouvellement
Christopher Chippindale, Stonehenge C om plete, decouverts d ’anim aux quadrupedes inconnus et des caverues
Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1983. qui les renfermeut dans le margraviat. de Bayreuth au-dela
C lu n a s 1991 des monts, trans. J. F. Isenflamm, Nurernburg, 1774.
Craig Clunas, Superfluous Things, M aterial Culture and E tien n e 1992
Social Status in Early M odern C hin a, Polity Press, Roland and Franôise Etienne, 1 he Search for Ancient
Cambridge, 1991. G reece, Thames and Hudson, London and Abrams,
C oh en and H ublin 1989 New York, 1992.

Claudine Cohen and Jean-Jacques Hublin, Boucher de Finley 1975
Perthes, 1 7 8 8 -1 8 6 8 et les origines romantiques de la M .I. Finley, T h e Use an d A bu se o f H istory, Chatto and
prehistoire, Belin, Paris, 1989. Windus, London, 1975.
3 75
F ra n z 1945 G rign on 1774

Leonhard Franz, G o e t h e un d d ie l.T z eit. Innsbruck Pierre Clem ent Grignon, B u llin jsicj des fou illes faites
Universitatsveriag, Wagner, 1945. p a r ordre du roi, d ’unc ville rom ain e, sur la p e tite m on tag n e
Frere 1800 du ch atelet, entre S a in t D i z i e r e t joiu i'ille en (C ham pagne.
John Frere, A ccou nt o f Flint Weapons Discovered at Bar-le-D uc, 1774.

Hoxne in Suffolk', in A rch a eolo g ia 1 3 . 1800, pp. 204—5. G ronovius 1 6 9 4 -1 7 0 3
G aehtgens 1986 Jacob Gronovius, T h esau ru s a n tiqu itatu n i g raecorum ,
Thomas W. Gaehtgens (ed .).J o h a n n J o a c h im 13 volumes, Leiden. 1694—1703.
W in ck e lm a im 1 7 1 7 - 1 7 6 8 . Meiner, Hamburg, 1986. G uibert de N o g en t 1981
G aran g er 1980 Guibert de Nogent, D e vita s u a , ed. and trans.
Jose Garanger,‘Tradition orale et Prehistoire on E .R . Labande, Paris. 1981.
O ceanie’, in A. Schnapp (ed.), L ’A rch eo lo g ie G u m m el 1938
a u jo u rd 'h u i , Hachette, Paris, 1980, pp. 187—205. Hans Gummel, F orschu ngsgeschichte in D eu tsch la n d , D ie
Gassendi 1641 U rgeschichtsforschu ng u n d litre H istorisch c E n tw ick lu n g in
Pierre Gassendi, Viri illustris N ic o la i C la u d ii F ah ricii de d er K u ltu rstaaren d er E rd e, h erau sg eg eben von K a r l
P eircsc S en a toris A q u is e x tie n s is V ita, Paris, 1641. H erm a n n ja c o b -F r ie s e n . Walter dc Gruvter. Berlin,
1938.
G ayrard-V aly 1987
Yvette Gayrard-Valy, L e s Fossilcs, em p rein tes d ’uu G u zzo 1993
n io n d e disparu, Gallimard, Paris, 1987. Pier Giovanni Guzzo, A n tico e a rch eolog ia, sc ic n z a e
p o litica d elie diverse antichird. Nuova Alfa Editoriale,
G erhard 1850
Bologna, 1993.
Eduard Gerhard, ‘Archaologische Thesen’, in
A rchiiologischer A iiz c ig e r zu r A rch a o lo g isch eu Z eitu n g . H am y 1906
V III, 1850, pp. 2 0 3 -6 . Theodore Hamy,‘Materiaux pour servir a l'histoire
de l’archcologie prehistorique', in R e v u e arch eolog iqu e,
G lassner 1993
1 9 0 6 ,1, pp. 2 3 9 -5 9 and II, pp. 3 7 -4 8 .
Jean-Jacques Glassner (ed. and trails.), C h ro iiiq u es
m es o p o ta m ic iin e s , Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 1993. H ansen 1967
G.C. Hansen,‘Ausgrabungen im Altertunf,
G o eth e 1832
D a s A ltertu m , 13, 1967, pp. 44—50.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. P rincipe* tie p h ilo s o p h ic
z o o lo g iq u e. D iscutes cn m ars 1 8 3 0 au scin d e I'A ca d em ie H azard 1961
royalc des sciences p a r Mr. C eoff'roy S a in t-1 lilaire, Paris Paul Hazard. L a C rise d e la conscience eu rop een u c.
1832; I 8 6 8 -7 9 in W erkc, 34, Hempel, Berlin, Favard, Paris, 1961.
pp. 146-74. H erb st 1848
G ohau 1990 C.F. Herbst, H v id eg a a rd s F u n d et, A n n a le r for nord isk
Gabriel Gohau, L e s Sciences d e la terre a u x X V I I e m e ct O ld k y n d ig h ed . 1848. p. 336.
X V ll I e m e siecles, n aissan ce d e la g e o lo g ie. Albm M ichel. H eeren -D iek h o ff 1981
Paris, 1990. Elae H eeren-Diekhoff, D a s H si C h in g T s a C h i
G olzio 1936 (V erm ischte A u fz e ic h n u n g e n fib er d ie w estliche
Vicenzo Golzio, R a ffa e llo n ei d ocu m en ti, n elle H a u p ts fa d t), M unich, 1981.
tes tim o n ia liz e dci con tein p oran ei e n eiia Ictteratura d el su e H ildeb ran dt 1937
s cco lo , Vatican City, 1936. Bengt Hildebrandt, C .J. T h o m se n och h a n s larda
Gould 1990 fo r b in d e ls e r i S v erig e 18 1 6 - 18 3 7, bidrag rill den N o r d is k a
Stephen Jay Gould, T i m e ’s A rro w ,T im e's C y c le, Jo r n -o c h H a v d a fo rsk n in g en s H is to r ic [C.J. Thomsen and
Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1988. his scholarly reports in Sweden, 1816-37.
G raevius 1694 Contribution to the history o f archaeology and
Johann Georg Graevius, 'I'hesannis an tiqu itatu iu research|. 2 volumes. Stockholm 1937.
rom atm ru m , 12 volumes, Utrecht. 1694—9. H ilp rech t 1903
G rafton 1993 H.U. Hilprecht 1903, E x p lo ra tio n s in the B ib le L a n d s ,
Anthony Grafton, R o m e R e h o r n , T h e Vatican L ib ra ry Philadelphia, 1903.
a n d R en a issa n c e (Culture, Library o f Congress, H o h en h eim 1929
Washington. 1993. Theophrast von Hohenheim (Paracelsus), Sd m tlich e
ll'erk e, I, 12, Karl Sudhoff, Berlin, 1929.
G raslund 1987
Bo Graslund, T h e B irth o f P rehistoric C h ron olog y , H o ltzh au er 1969
D a tin g M eth o d s a n d D a tin g S y stem s in N in e te en th - Helmut Holzhauer, /. IV. G o e th e , W in ck elm a n n un d sein
C e n tu r y S ca n d in a v ia n A rch a eolo g y , Cambridge fah rh u n d ert (1 8 0 5 ), B riefen un d A u fs iit z e n , Tubingen,
University Press, Cambridge, 1987. 1969.
G rayson 1983 H o ok e 1705
Donald K. Grayson, T h e E stab lish m en t o f H u m a n R obert Hooke, T h e P o sth u m o u s W ork o f T h o m a s
A n tiq u ity , Academic Press, New York, 1983. H o o k e , ed. R . Waller, London, 1705.
376
BIBLIOGRAPHY
H o tm a n 1583 L eg ran d 1897

Francois Hotman, Friiiifo-Ga/fwi. Paris, 1583. P.E. Legrand,‘Biographie de C.F. Sebastien Fauvel’,
H u n te r 1975 in R evue archeologique , 1897, pp. 41—66 and 185—201.
Michael Hunter, John A ubrey an d the R ealm o f L eg ran d d ’A ussy 1799
Learning, Duckworth, London, 1975. Pierre Legrand d’Aussy. M em oire sur les anciennes
H u p p e rt 1970 sepultures nationales.Vari*,, 1799.
George Huppert, T he Idea o f Perfect History: Historical Leibniz 1717
Erudition and H istorical Philosophy in Renaissance G.W. Leibniz, Collectanea Etym ologica cum praefationc
France , University o f Illinois Press, 1970. Jo . Georgi, Eccardi, II, Hanover, 1717.
Ja co b y 1957 Lepenies 1976
Felix Jacoby, D ie h'ragmente der griechischer H istoriker - W olf Lepenies, D as L n d e der X aturgeschichte ,
ersterTeil, G enealogie und M ythographie, Brill, Leiden, W anddkultureller Selbstverstandlichkeiten in den
1957. Wissenschaften des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts, Hanser
Jaffe 1988 Verlag, M unich and Vienna, 1976.
David Jaffe, Rubens' Self-portrait in Focus. Australian Lepenies 1984
National Gallery7. Canberra, 1988. W olf Lepenies/Der andere Fanatiker. Historisierung
K en d rick 1950 undVerwissenschaftlichung der Kunstauffassung bei
T .D Kendrick, British A ntiqu ity , M ethuen, London, J.J. W inckelmann’, in Id eal und W irklichkeit der
1950. bildenden K unst im spciten I S.Jahrhundert. ed. H. Beck.
Gebriider Mann Verlag, Berlin, 1984, pp. 19-29.
K ing 1912
L.W. King (ed.), Babylonian Boundary Stones, London, Lepenies 1986
1912. W olf Lepenies,‘Kunst und Naturgeschichtc ini 18.
Jahrhundert, in Gaethgens, 1986, pp. 2 2 1 -3 8 .
K lindt-Jensen 1975
Ole Klindt-Jensen, A History of Scandinavian Levy 1964
A rchaeology ,Thames and Hudson. London, 1975 F.J. Levy, T h e M aking of C a m d en ’s Britannia,
K lindt-Jensen 1981 Bibliothcque dTiumanisme et de Renaissance, 26,
1964, pp. 7 0 -9 7 .
Ole Klindt-Jensen,‘Archaeology and Ethnography in
Denmark: early studies', in G. Daniel, 1981, pp. 14—19. L o n g 1888
K u hn 1976 W .H. Long (ed.), O^/anc/cr M emoirs, London, 1888.
Herbert Kiihn. G eschichte der Vorgeschichtsforschuug, Low enthal 1985
Walter de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, 1976. David Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country,
Kunst 1982 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1985.
Michael Kunst/lntellektuclle Information - M agnus 1567
genetische Information, zur Fragen derTypologie Olaus Magnus, Historia de gentibus septentrionalitus ,
und typologischen M ethodc', in Acta Praehistorica et Basle, 1567.
archaeologica . 13—1 4 ,1 9 8 2 .pp. 1—26.
M aim on ides 1970
L a ck e n b a ch e r 1990 Moise ben Maimoun, called Maimonides, L e G uide
Sylvie Lackenbacher, L e Palais sans rival La des egares, trans. S. Munk, Maisonneuve et Larose,
Decouverte, Paris. 1990. Paris, 1970.
L a m in g -E m p e ra ire 1964 M andow sky 1963
Annette Laming-Emperaire, Origines de I ’archeologie E. Mandowsky and C. M itchell, Pirro Ligorio's Rom an
prehistorique en France. Picard, Paris, 1964. A iniquities. T he Warburg Institute, London, 1963.
Lan cian i 1902 M arana 1748
R odolfo Lanciani, Storia degli scavi di R om a. R om e, Giovanni Paolo Marana, T h e Eight Volumes o f Letters
1902. W rit by a Turkish Spy, tvho L ived Five and Forty Years
L ap eyrere 1656 Undiscovered at Paris , trans. William Bradshaw,
Isaac de Lapeyrere, M en Before A dam . London, 1656. L o n d o n ,1748.
Lap eyrere 1732 M arsden 1983
Isaac de Lapeyrere, A n Account o f Greenland, London. Barry M. Marsden, Pioneers o f Prehistory, Leaders and
1732. L an dm arks in English A rchaeology ( 1 5 0 0 - 1900 ),
Heskett, Ormskirk, 1983.
La Sauvagere 1758
Felix de La Sauvagere, Dusmrtfions imVi’fm’iTs f.vfrrii'ft's M artin 1727
du journal historique de la France. Amsterdam, 1758. Jacques Martin, L a Religion des G aulois tiree des plus
pures sources de I’A ntiqu ite , Paris, 1727.
L e Gall 1973
Jo el Le Gall, Ernest de Saint-Denis and Raymond M azzarin o 1989
Weil, A lesia, textes littemires antiques, Aubier. Pans, Santo Mazzarino, Fra oriente c ocndcnte, Ricerche di
1973. storiagreca arcaica, Rizzoli. Milan, 1989.
377
M em oires 1779 avec le p e re Paciau, theatin, suivie de celle de I'abbe

M em oires concernant I’histoire, les sciences, les arts, les Barthelem y et de P. M ouette avec le m em e, Paris, 1878.
mceurs, les usages, etc. des C hinois p a r les missionnaires de N o ra 1984
P ekin, volume IV, Paris, 1779. Pierre Nora, L es L ieu x de memoire, 1 volumes,
M enage 1694 Gallimard, Paris, 1984-92.
Gilles Menage, G illes M enage ou les botis mots, les O len d er 1989
pensees critiques de M . M enage, 2 volumes, Paris, 1694.
Maurice Olender, Les Langues du Paradis. A ryens et
M enn un g 1925 Semites, un couple providentiel, Gallimard-Le Seuil,
Albert M ennung, Uber die Vorstufen der prahistorischen Pans, 1989.
W issenschaft im A ltertum und Mittelalter, Schonebeck
O w en 1986
(Elbe), 1925. Stephen Owen, Remembrances, the Experience oj the
M ercati 1719 Past in Classical C hin ese Literature, Harvard University
M ichele Mercati, M etallotheca Vaticana, opus Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1986.
posthumurn, R om e, 1719. P e tri 1917
M ichelet 1959 Olaus P etri,‘En Swensk Cronecka’,in S am lade
Jules M ichelet, Jou rn a l, volume 1 ,1 8 2 8 -4 8 , year 1831, Skrifter a f O lavus Petri IV , ed.J. Sahlgren, Uppsala,
ed. P.Viallaneix, Paris, 1959. 1917.
M ichell 1982 P icco lo m in i 1551
Joh n M ichell, M egalolithom ania. Artists, A ntiquarians Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, O pera quae extant, Basle,
an d Archaeologists at the O ld Stone M onum ents, Thames 1551.
and Hudson, London, 1982. P ig g o tt 1976
M om iglian o 1983 Stuart Piggott, Ruins in a Landscape, Essays in
Arnaldo M om igliano,‘L’histoire ancienne et A ntiquarianism , Edinburgh University Press,
l’antiquaire’, in Problemes d ’historiographie ancienne et Edinburgh, 1976.
m oderne, Gallimard, Paris, 1983, pp. 244—93.
P ig g o tt 1985
M on gez 1812—17 Stuart Piggot, W illiam S tu keley , Thames and Hudson,
Antoine M ongez, M emoires sur les pierres tranchantes London, 1985.
trouvees dans les sepultures anciennes, Histoire et
P ig g o tt 1989
M emoires de 1’Academie royale de France, 5, Stuart Piggott, A ncient Britons and the A ntiquarian
1 8 1 2 -1 7 , pp. 7 0 -1 . Im agination, Ideas from the R enaissance to the Regency,
M ontelius 1903 Thames and Hudson, London, 1989.
Oscar Montelius, D ie typologische M ethode. D ie alteren P in on 1991
Kulturperioden im Orient und in Europa, Stockholm,
Pierre Pinon, L a G au le retrouvee, Gallimard, Paris,
1903. 1991.
M on tfau con 1719 P in tard 1983
Bernard de Montfaucon, L ’A ntiquite expliqu ee et R en e Pintard, L e Libertinage erudit dans la prem iere
representee en figures, 15 volumes, Paris, 1719—24.
m oitie du X V IIem e siecle, Slatkine, Geneva, 1983.
M orrisson 1981 P itt-R iv ers 1868
Cecile M orrisson,‘La decouverte des tresors a A.H .L. Fox P itt-R iv ers,‘Primitive Warfare Part IT, in
Lepoque byzantine’, in Travaux et M em oires , no. 8, Jou rn a l of the Ethnological Society o f L on don , new series,
1981, pp. 3 2 1 -4 4 . 1 8 6 8 ,1, pp. 1 -12.
M o rte t 1911 P itt-R iv ers 1874
V ictor M ortet, Recueil de textes relatifs a I’histoire de A.H .L. Fox P itt-R iv ers,‘O n the Principles o f
}’architecture et a la condition des architectes en France au
Classification Adopted in the Arrangement o f his
M oy en A g e, A. Picard, Paris, 1911.
Anthropological Collection, now Exhibited in the
M ortillet 1872 Bethnal Green M useum’, in Jou rn a l o f the
Gabriel de M o rtillet,‘Classification des diverses Anthropological Institute, 1874, 4, pp. 293—308.
periodes de l’age de la pierre’, in R evue P itt-R iv ers 1875
d ’anthropologie , 1872, pp. 432—5. A.H.L. Fox P itt-R ivers,‘O n the Evolution o f
M uller 1886 Culture’, in Proceedings o f the R oyal Institute o f Great
Sophus M uller,‘Mindre Bidrag til den forhistoriske Britain, 1875, 7, pp. 496—514.
Archaeologis M ethode’, in A arbeger, 1886, p. 161. P lo t 1677
M un ster 1552 R o b ert Plot, T h e Natural History o f O x ford sh ire,
Sebastian Munster, Cosm ographiae universalis, lib.VI, Oxford, 1677.
1552. P lo t 1686
N isard 1878 R o b ert Plot, T h e Natural History o f S taffordshire,
C. Nisard, Correspondance inedite du comte de Caylus Oxford, 1686.
378
BIBLIOGRAPHY
P o m ia n 1984 Schlosser 1908

Krzysztof Pomian, L ’Ordrc du temps, Gallimard, Paris, Julius von Schlosser, D ie K u n st und W underkammern
1984. der Spdm naissance, Leipzig, 1908.
P o m ian 1987 S ch napp er 1988

Krzysztof Pomian, Collectionneurs, amateurs et curieux, Antoine Schnapper, L e G eant, la Licorne et la Tulipe,
Paris- Venise X V Ie m e -X V IlIe m e siecle, Gallimard, Paris, collections fran;aises au X V IIem e siecle, Flammarion,
1987. Pans, 1988.
Popkin 1987 Sch iick 1932
R .H . Popkin, Isaac de Lapeyrere, Brill, Leiden, 1987. H. Schiick, K g l Vitterhets, H istorie och Antikvitets
A kad em ien I-V III, Stockholm, 1932.
R a m u s 1587
Petrus Ramus, Traite de I’art militaire ou usance de Settis 1984
guerre ch ez J . Cesar, Paris, 1587. Salvatore Settis (ed.), M em oria d ell’antico nell'arte
italiana, 3 volumes, Einaudi, R om e, 1984—6.
R e in e r 1985
Erica Reiner, Your thwarts in pieces, Your m oorin ’ rope Shaugnessy 1991
cut, Poetry from Babylonia and A ssyria, University o f Edward Shaugnessy, Sources o f Western Z h ou History,
M ichigan, Ann Arbor, 1985. University o f California Press, Berkeley, 1991.
R ein sch 1983 S igaut 1990

D .R . Reinsch, C ritobuli Im briotae H istoria, Walter de Francois Sigaut,‘D e la technologie a
Gruyter, Berlin, 1983. l’evolutionnisme, l’ceuvre de Pitt-R ivers’, in
G radhiva, 8 ,1 9 9 0 , pp. 20—37.
R h o d e 1719
Andreas Albert R hode, Cim brisch-H olsteinische Sklenar 1983
Antiquita'ten Rem arques, Hamburg, 1719. Karel Sklenar, Archaeology in Central Europe: the First
5 0 0 Years, Leicester University Press, Leicester, New
R ic h a rd 1991
York, 1983.
Nathalie Richard, L a Prehistoire en France dans la
seconde m oitie du X lX em e siecle, thesis, Paris, 1991. Slotkin 1965
J.S. Slotkin, R eadings in Early A nthropology, London,
R ich a rd 1992 1965.
Nathalie Richard, LTnvention de la prehistoire, une
anthologie , Presses Pocket, Paris, 1992. Snodgrass 1987
Anthony Snodgrass,‘T h e Landscape o f Ancient
R id e 1977 G reece’, in A n A rcheology o f Greece, University o f
Jacques R ide, L ’Im age du G erm ain dans la pensee et la California Press, Berkeley, 1987, pp. 6 7 -9 2 .
litterature allem ande de la redecouverte de Tacite a la fi n du
X V Iem e siecle, 3 volumes, Champion, Paris, 1977.
Sollberger 1967
E. Sollberger, L ost Inscriptions fr o m M ari - L a civilisation
R och eb lave 1889 de M ari, X V em e rencontre assyriologique internationale,
Samuel Rocheblave, E ssai sur le comte de Caylus, Liege, 1967, pp. 103-8.
Hachette, Paris, 1889.
S o u cek 1974
R o d d e n 1981 Priscilla Soucek, F arhad an d Taq-lbustan, the G rowth o f
Judith R o d d en ,‘T he development o f the Three Age a Legend, Studies in A rt an d Literature o f the N ear East
System: Archaeology’s first paradigm’, in in H on or o f R ichard Ettinghausen, T h e Middle East
G. Daniel, 1981, pp. 5 1 -6 8 . Center, 1974.
R o d o c a n a c h i 1914 Spanheim 1664
Emmanuel Rodocanachi, Les M onuments de R om e Ezechiel Spanheim, D issertatio de praestantia et usu
apres la chute de VEmpire, Hachette, Paris, 1914. numismatum antiquorum , R om e, 1664.
R ossi 1984 Sp on 1673
Paolo R ossi, T he D ark A byss o f Tim e. T he H istory o f the Jacob Spon, R echerche des A ntiquites et Curiosites de la
E arth an d the H istory o f N ations from H o o k e to V ico,T h e ville de Lyon, Lyons, 1673.
University o f Chicago Press, Chicago-London, 1984.
Stark 1880
R u d b e ck 1937 Carl Bernhard Stark, System atik und Geschichte der
O lo f R udbeck, A tlan d eller M anheim , ed. A. Nelson, A rchdologie der Kunst, Leipzig, 1880 (Anastatique
Uppsala, 1937. Fink, M unich, 1969).
R u d olp h 1 9 6 2 -3 S te m m e rm a n n 1934
R .C . R ud olp h,‘Preliminary Notes on Sung P.H. Stemmermann, D ie A nfange der deutschen
Archaeology’, in Jo u r n a l o f A sian Studies 2 2 , 1962—3, Vorgeschichtsforschung. Deutschlands Bodenaltertum er in
fascicule 2, pp. 169—77. der A nschauung des 16ten und 1 7 ten Jahrhundert,
S axo G ra m m a ticu s 1911 dissertation, Heidelberg, 1934.
Saxo Grammaticus, S akses D anesage, Copenhagen, Stoczkow ski 1993
1911. W iktor Stoczkowski,‘La prehistoire, les origines du
379
concept’, Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Fran$aise, U n g er 1927

1 9 9 3 ,9 0 , 1 -2 , pp. 13 -2 1 . Eckard Unger, Assyrische und Babylonische K unst ,
Stoczkow ski 1993 Breslau, 1927.
W iktor Stoczkowski,‘O ngines de l’homme, quand la U n ger 1931
science repete le mythe’, in L a Recherchc, 1992, 244, Eckard Unger, Babylon die H eilige Stadt nach der
pp. 746—50. Beschreibung der Babylonier, De Gruyter, Berlin, 1931.
Stubbs 1865 V acca 1704
William Stubbs, G esta Henrici I I et Ricardi I, 1865. Flaminio Vacca, M em orie di varie antichita trovateci in
Stukeley 1740 diversi luoghi della cittd di R om a, scritti da Flam inio Vacca
W illiam Stukeley, Stonehenge, A Temple Restored to the n ell’anno 1 5 9 4 , R om e, 1704.
British Druids, London, 1740. Verelius 1664
Svenbro 1976 O. Verelius, G othrici et R olft Westrogothicae regum,
Jesper Svenbro, L a Parole et le Marhre, au x origines dc la Uppsala, 1664.
poetiqu e grecque, dissertation, Lund, 1976. W ataghin 1984
Svennung 1967 Gisela Cantino Wataghin, “Archeologia e
J. Svennung, Z u r G eschichte des Goticismus, Almqvist “archeologie” . II rapporto con l’antico fra mito, arte
and Wiksell, Stockholm , 1967. e ricerca’, in Settis, 1984, volume I, pp. 171—221.
Sw ozilek 1987 W eickert 1955

Helmut Swozilek, M otiv A rchaologie - Archaologische Karl Weickert, ‘Geschichte des D A .I.’, Arcluiologischer
M otive in der K unst (insbesondere Ur- und A nzeiger, 1955, pp. 127-56.
Friihgcschichte), Bregenz, 1987. Weiss 1988
Taillepied 1585 R ob erto Weiss, T h e R enaissance Discovery of Classical
N oelTaillepied, H istoire de VEtat et dc la R epuhlique Antiquity, Blackwell, Oxford, 1988, 2nd edn.
des Druides, Pans, 1585. W illey and Sab loff 1980
T allgren 1936 Gordon R . Willey and jerem v A. Sabloff, A History o f
A .M .Tallgren,‘Sur la methode de Tarcheologie American Archaeology, Thames and Hudson, London,
prehi.storique’, in Eurasia Scptentrionalis A f/nqu a, 1936, 1980, 2nd edn.
X , pp. 16 -2 4 . W in ck elm ann 1880
T aylor 1948 Johann Joachim Winckelmann, T he History o f Ancient
F.H. Taylor, T he Taste o f Angels, a H istory o f A rt A rt A m ong the G reeks, trans. G. Henry Lodge,
Collecting from Raineses to N apoleon , Boston, 1948. James R . Osgood and Company, Boston, 1880.
T h ie rry 1993 W o rm 1643
Francois Thierry,‘Sur les monnaies sassanides O le Worm, D anicom m M onumentorum libri sex,
trouvees en Chine', Res orien tales.v olumeV, 1993, Copenhagen, 1643.
pp. 8 9 -1 3 9 . W o rm 1751
T h o m se n 1836 O le Worm, O lai Wormi et ad cunt doctorum virontm
L edetraad til N ordisk O ldkyndighed, Cophenhagen, epistolae, Copenhagen, 1751.
1836, (German trails., Leitfaden fur norciische W rig h t 1844
A ltertum skunde , Hamburg, 1837). Thomas W rig h t,‘On Antiquarian Excavations and
T ournai 1834 Researches in the Middle Ages', A rchaeologia, X X X ,
P.Tournai, A nnales de Sciences naturelles. 1834. 1844, pp. 4 3 8 -5 7 .
T rig g e r 1989 Z a p p e rt 1850
B ru ce G. Trigger, A H istory of A rchaeological Georg Zappert, Uber Antiqm tdtenfuude im Mittelalter,
T h o u g h t , Cam bridge University Press, Cam bridge, Sitz ungsberichte der K aisedichen A kad em ie der
1989. W issenschaften, Philosophische-H istorische C lasse V ,
T w itch ett 1992 Vienna, 1850, pp. 7 5 3 -9 9 .
Denis Twitchett, T he Writing of O fficial H istory Under Z evi 1987
the T ’ong , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Fausto Z evi.’Gli scavi di Ercolano e le antichita’, in
1992. L e antichita di Ercolano , Guida, Naples, pp. 9—38.
380
I N D E X O F N A M E S
N u m b e rs in b o ld re fe r to B e lz o m , G io v a n n i 2 9 6 , 2 9 8 C aylus, C o m te de 3 6 , 221, D id e r o t, D e n is 2 5 8 , 2 6 3 ,
illu stra tio n ca p tio n s B e rg ie r, N ic o la s 1 8 0 ,1 8 0 , 2 3 4 ,2 3 8 -4 2 ,2 3 8 ,2 4 0 . 3 6 7 -8
2 0 1 - 3 ,3 5 6 ,3 6 8 2 4 1 .2 4 2 ,2 4 5 - 7 ,2 5 1 , D io d o ru s Sicu lu s 6 8 , 7 0
B ia n c h in i, F ra n c e sco 1 8 2 . 2 5 3 ,2 5 3 ,2 5 6 ,2 5 8 ,2 6 6 , D io n y siu s o f H alicarnassus
1 8 5 ,1 8 6 ,1 8 6 - 8 ,2 3 5 , 2 6 7 .2 6 9 - 7 2 . 2 7 7 , 2 7 8 , 6 2 . 63
A bdessalam , C h ad i 12 2 4 1 ,2 4 6 2 7 9 ,2 8 0 ,2 8 0 ,2 9 5 ,2 9 9 . D lu g o sz ,Ja n 1 4 6 ,3 4 7
A cusilaus 7 4 B io n d o , Flavio 1 2 2 , 1 3 9 , 3 2 2 ,3 2 3 ,3 6 4 .3 6 5 D o m b ro w s k i,Y u n 12
A d hem ar, Je a n 1 0 2 , 10 4 176, 339 C e ltis, K o n ra d 166 D o n d i, G io v an n i 108
A d rian I, P o p e 9 2 B lacas, D u k e o f 3 0 6 C e a sa r,Ju liu s 2 7 , 8 9 , 9 0 , 90, D o u g la s,Ja m e s 2 8 1 ,2 8 2 .
A drovandi. U lisse 124 B o c c a c c io 10, 1 0 4 , 1 0 8 , 111 9 5 , 1 0 3 ,1 3 2 , 1 5 3 ,2 7 8 282
A eld red , A b b o t 9 8 - 9 B o c h a r t, S im o n 2 1 4 C e sa ria n o , C e sare 6 8 , 73 D ro v e tti, B e rn a rd m 2 9 6 ,
A g a m e m n o n 47, 4 9 , 5 2 , 73 B o c k , A ugust 3 0 6 , 3 1 0 C e si, P ao lo E m ilio 1 2 4 , 1 2 5 298
A gcsilau s 5 4 B o e th iu s 112 C h a m p o llio n , Je a n -F ra n ^ o is D u g d a le ,W illia m 2 8 4
A g o stin o , A n to n io 1 2 6 ,1 2 8 . B o n a p a rte , L u c ie n 3 0 7 , 3 1 0 298, 306 D iire r, A lb re ch t 166, 170
3 0 4 ,3 4 5 B o rg e s . Jo r g e Luis 2 0 , C h a rle m a g n e 4 6 , 8 9 , 89, 9 2 ,
A g rico la , G e o rg 146 2 8 - 3 0 ,3 2 ,4 2 ,1 3 8 9 3 , 9 7 , 97, 105 E c c a r d J .G . 2 0 6
A la ric 8 3 B o rg h e si, B a r to lo m e o 3 0 6 C h arles III, K in g o f Sp ain E g a n ,Jo h n 2 7 6
A lban , S ain t 9 8 - 9 B o s io , A n to n io 1 9 7 ,2 0 4 and N ap les 2 4 2 , 2 4 5 E lg in , Lord 2 6 1 - 3 , 2 9 5 , 2 9 8
A lb e rti, L e o n B attista 122, B o u c h e r de P e rth e s,Ja c q u e s C h a te a u b ria n d , F ra n c o is - E lm e r, A b b o t 9 8
126, 3 3 9 2 5 ,3 6 ,3 7 ,7 1 ,7 2 ,2 8 0 , R e n e de 2 4 6 , 3 0 5 E m ilio , P ao lo 132
A lbizzi, C ard in al 2 2 8 2 8 1 , 2 9 4 , 3 0 9 , 3 1 0 - 14. C h a z e ra t, C h arles 251 K sp e r,Jo h a n n F rie d rich 2 8 5 .
A lcu b ie rre . R o c c o Jo a c h in 3 1 2 ,3 1 3 ,3 7 1 C h if fle t.J e a n -Ja c o b 2 0 3 - 4 , 2 8 6 ,2 8 6
2 4 2 ,2 4 5 B o u la n g e r, N ic o la s A n to in e 2 0 3 .3 5 6 -7 E ste, Ip p o lito d' 1 2 6
A lcu in 9 2 2 7 1,3 6 7 - 8 C h ild e r ic 8 7 . 1 9 8 , 2 0 3 .2 0 3 , E u g e n e o f Savoy, P r in c e 2 4 2
A ldrov andi, U lisse 174 B o u rd a n , Louis 2 4 8 2 0 4 .3 5 6 - 7 ,3 6 2 E v a n s ,Jo h n 3 1 4
A m e rb a ch , B asilu s 148 B o u rd e lo t. P ie rre 2 2 9 C h o is e u l-G o u ttie r . C o m te
A tn phibalu s. S ain t 86 B r a c c io lin i, P o g g io 3 3 9 de 2 6 0 - 2 , 2 6 1 . 2 9 8 F a b ric iu s .J. A. 2 1 2
A n te n o r 1 0 5 B r a u n , G e o rg e 14, 2 4 0 C h ristia n IV o f D e n m a rk F a lco n e r, H u g h 3 1 3 ,3 1 4
A p o llo 2 2 , 4 7 , 5 6 , 1 0 0 , 1 0 5 B r e iu l, H e n r i 3 2 4 176 F arhad 3 3 , 34
A rdnt, E rn st M o r itz 291 B ro sse s, C h a rle s de 2 4 5 . C h ristin a o f Sw e d e n 2 2 2 Faussett, B r ia n 2 8 1 .2 8 2
A rdres, L a m b e rt d ’ 95 246 C h ris to l.Ju le s de 2 9 3 F auvel, L o u is 2 6 1 , 2 6 2 , 262 ,
A rth u r, K in g 9 7 , 9 8 , 99, 1 04 B r o w n e ,T h o m a s 3 2 , 188. C ic e r o 5 8 , 6 3 , 6 6 , 8 8 , 10 6 . 298
A u b r e y ,Jo h n 1 8 8 ,1 9 0 - 9 6 , 1 9 6 - 8 ,1 9 7 ,3 3 0 ,3 5 3 - 4 182 F ea, C a rlo 3 0 6
1 9 1 ,1 9 3 ,1 9 4 ,1 9 8 ,2 1 1 , B r u n o . G io rd a n o 2 2 6 . 2 2 8 C 'n n o n 51 F e licia n o , F e lic e 3 3 8 - 9 , 3 3 8
2 2 9 , 2 3 7 ,2 4 5 ,2 5 0 ,2 6 6 , B u c k la n d , W illia m 2 8 6 , 2 8 9 , C o ch erel 2 6 8 .2 6 9 .2 7 7 , F erd inan d I, E m p e r o r 148
2 7 7 ,2 9 5 ,3 2 2 ,3 6 0 289 , 2 9 3 , 3 1 3 , 3 1 4 2 7 8 ,2 8 5 ,3 5 7 ,3 5 7 -8 F errara, D u k e o f 12 6
A ugustus 1 0 2 , 1 14, 3 3 4 B a d e . G u illau m e 139 C o c h in . C h arles 2 4 6 F eselen , M e lc h io r 9 0
A ugustus II. E le c to r o f B u fa lin i, L e o n a rd o 3 4 3 - 4 . C o c k e r e ll 2 6 0 ‘F ilarete, il’. see A verlino
Saxony 242 344 C o lu m b u s. C h r isto p h e r 2 2 6 Finley, M .I. 7 2 . 73
A u g u stine, S ain t 6 3 , 6 4 - 5 , B u ffo n . G .L . L e c le r c d c 2 2 2 , C o lt H o are , R ic h a r d 2 8 2 - 4 , F lav iu s,Jo se p h u s 6 2 , 63
6 6 ,1 2 3 ,2 2 4 2 6 7 ,2 7 0 - 2 ,2 7 6 ,2 8 6 , 2 8 3 ,2 9 0 . 2 9 1 F o r c h h a m m c r ,J.G . 3()2
A u reliu s, M arcu s 89, 3 5 0 3 1 0 ,3 6 7 ,3 6 8 C o n d e . P r in c e o f 2 2 2 F o u ca u lt, N .J. 251
A urelius 83 B u n se n , C h ristia n v o n 3 0 5 . C o n sta n tin e . E m p e ro r 8 7 . F o u lc o ie de Beauvais
A u rillac, G e r b e rt d\ Pope 306 95.101 9 9 -1 0 1
336 B u o n d c lm o n ti, C risto fo ro C o w p e r,W illia m 2 1 8 F racasto ri, G iro la m o 2 3 0
A verlino, A n to n io di P etro 1 1 5 .2 9 6 C o s im o , P iero di 10, 71 F re d e rick II, E m p e r o r 102
26 B u r e . Jo h a n 1 5 3 , 1 5 7 - 9 , 1 67, C o s p i, F erd in an d o 171 F re d e rick III, K in g of
1 7 6 . 196 C o t t o n , Sir R o b e r t 141 D e n m a rk 1 76. 2 3 0
B a c o n . F ran cis 3 1 , 9 9 , 1 6 3 , B u rn a b u ria s h 1 4 ,1 7 , 18 C r e u z e r . F r ie d r ic h 3 0 5 , F re r e ,Jo h n 2 8 5 ,2 8 5
1 64, 1 7 6 , 1 9 0 ,1 9 3 ,2 2 3 , B u r t o n . R o b e r t 15 4 306 F rie d r ic h , C asp ar D av id 278
351 B iis c h in g , Jo h an n Gustav- C ro c k e r, P h ilip 2 8 2 , 2 8 3 F u rtw an g le r, A d o lp h 3 2 4
B a g f o r d jo h n 2 8 5 291 C u n n in g to n , W illia m 2 8 2 - 4 ,
B aiard i, O tta v io -A n to n io B y ro n , G e o rg e 2 9 5 2 8 3 ,2 9 0 G aig n ieres, R o g e r de 2 4 7 .
246 C u v ie r, G e o rg e s 2 8 5 , 2 8 6 . 24 7, 248 , 2 5 0
B alsiger, B arb ara 167 C a lz o la ri, F ran cesco 168, 2 8 6 .2 8 9 ,2 9 0 ,2 9 3 .2 9 4 , G aillard de L o n ju m e a u 248
B alzac, G u e z de 19 0 1 7 0 , 174 31 1 ,3 1 3 .3 7 3 G ale, R o g e r 2 1 8
B a n c o , M a so di 101 C a m d e n ,W illia m 1 3 ,1 7 , C y p raeu s, Paulus 14 6 G a lile o 1 3 4 , 1 5 4 ,2 2 9
B a r b e rim , F ran ce sco 1 3 4 , 1 3 4 .1 3 9 - 4 2 .1 3 9 ,1 5 ( 1 , C y ria c o f A n co n a 1 1 0 , 111. G a n e lo n 1 0 5
2 2 8 ,2 2 9 151, 1 5 3 ,1 5 4 ,1 5 9 , 188, 1 1 4 .1 1 4 ,3 3 9 G arang er, Jo s e 2 3 . 2 4
B a r th e le m y Je a n -Ja c q u c s , 1 9 1 ,1 9 8 ,2 1 3 ,2 3 7 ,2 5 0 , G assendi, P ie tro 1 3 3 ,1 3 4 ,
A bbo t 2 3 8 ,2 6 0 ,2 9 8 360 D a rw in . C h arles 3 0 4 , 3 1 4 , 1 3 6 ,1 5 4 ,1 6 0
B a r th o ld y ,Ja c o b 3 0 5 C a m p a n e lla ,T o m m a so 2 2 8 3 1 4 ,3 2 2 G a u d ry A lb e rt 3 1 4
B av aria, D u k e o f 16 8 C arav ag gio , P o lid o ro da 40 D av id , Jacqu es L o u is 2 6 6 G au tier, H e n r i 3 6 8
B e a tric e de L o rr a in e 106 C 'asaubon, Isaac 134 D e l P o zzo, C assiano 2 2 9 G e o ffro y S a in t-H ila ire ,
B e a u m csn il, P ierre de 250, C a sa u b o n , M e r ic 191 D e n o n ,V iv a n t 296 E tie n n e 2 9 0
2 5 1 ,2 5 3 C assiod o ru s 3 3 4 - 5 D e sca rte s, R e n e 190 G e o ffro y S a in t-H ila ire ,
B e a z le y ,Jo h n 3 2 4 C a u m o n t, A rcisse de 2 8 0 . D ia c re , Paul 9 2 Isidore 3 13
Bellav, Jo a c h im du 1 2 1 , 132 28 1 D ic a e a rc h u s 6 8 . 7 0 G erh ard , Eduard 3 0 4 - 1 0
381
G esn e r, K o n ra d 17 4 H o g e n b e rg , Frans 1 4 , 2 4 0 L e la n d ,Jo h n 1 3 9 ,1 4 0 M ath e siu s, Jo h a n n e s 1 46,

G h e z z i,P ie r L e o n e 316 H o ld e rin , Jo h a n n C h ristia n L e m a n ,T h o m a s 2 8 3 148
G lan ville, B a r th e le m y de F rie d r ic h 2 9 5 L e n o ir, A le xan d re 2 7 9 M a x im ilia n I, E m p e r o r 1 18,
144 H o m e r 4 5 , 4 7 , 5 6 , 1 1 4 ,3 4 0 L e n o rm a n d , C h arle s 3 0 6 1 6 6 ,1 6 7 , 1 7 0
G o e th e . J.W . 2 4 6 , 2 6 3 , 264, H o o k e , R o b e r t 2 3 0 , 231 L e o X 12 3 M ea d , R ic h a r d 2 1 2
2 7 2 ,2 7 4 ,2 7 8 ,2 8 9 ,2 9 0 , H o tm a n , F ran co is 13 3 L e o n ard o da V in c i 2 3 0 ,2 3 1 M e h m e t II 1 1 0 ,1 1 1 ,3 4 0
2 9 1 ,2 9 2 ,2 9 5 ,3 1 3 H o tm a il. Je a n 1 4 0 L eo p ard i, G ia c o m o 3 0 6 M e iste rlin , Sig ism u n d 108,
G o g u e t, A .Y . 2 8 4 H u m b o ld t, W ilh e lm von L e p e n ie s ,W o lf 27 1 110, 1 1 1 , 1 4 2 , 3 4 5 - 6
G o ltz iu s, H u b e rt 135 2 6 3 ,3 0 5 ,3 0 6 ,3 0 9 ,3 1 0 L e ro i-G o u rh a n , A n d re 3 2 4 M e r c a ti, M ic h e le 1 5 1 ,1 5 4 ,
G o u jo n , je a n 72 H u n te r, M ich a e l 191 L e R o y , D av id 266 155, 1 7 4 ,2 3 1 , 2 6 7 , 2 8 4 ,
G r a e v iu s ,J-G . 2 3 4 H u tte n , U lric h v o n 131 L e ry ,Je a n d c 45 3 1 9 ,3 4 7 - 8 ,3 4 7
G r a tie n 83 L essing, G o tth o ld E p h raim M e r im e e , P ro sp er 281
G ray son , D o n a ld 2 8 6 Im p e rato , F e rra n te 1 6 0 . 168, 263 M etsy s, Q u e n tin 226
G r e g o ry o f N azian n u s, S t 82 1 7 0 , 171 L e to , P o m p o n io 62 M e tte r n ic h , P r in c e C le m e n s
G r e g o ry o f T o u rs 8 5 , 87 Isarn, A b b o t 90 L hu yd , E d w ard 198 3 0 6 ,3 0 9
G r e g o ry th e G re at 87 Iselin , Ja c q u e s -C h ris to p h e L ich as 5 3 - 4 M ey er, E J.L . 2 9 0 , 291
G r ig n o n , P ie r r e - C le m e n t 2 3 7 ,2 6 9 , 2 7 7 L ig o rio , P irr o 1 2 5 , 1 2 6 , 126, M ich a u x , A nd re 42, 43
2 5 6 ,2 5 6 ,2 5 7 1 2 8 ,1 3 4 ,1 3 6 , 179 M ic h a e l 1, K in g o t B u lg aria
G riv a u d de L a V in c e lle , Je ffe r s o n ,T h o m a s 2 6 6 , 276, L in d e b e rg , P e te r 152 90
C la u d e M a d e le in e 2 8 0 , 3 6 8 -7 0 L m d e n sch m id t, L u d w ig 2 9 1 M ic h e le t,Ju le s 2 8 0
280 Je r o m e , Sain t 1 0 0 Li S h a o ju n 7 6 M illin , A u g u ste L o u is 2 8 0
G r o n o v iu s J 2 3 4 J o b e r t , L o u is 1 8 9 L i-S h i- T s c h in 145 M illin g e n , Ja m e s 3 0 6
G ro tiu s, H u g o (de G ro o t) jo m a r d , E d m e 2 9 6 , 296 Li S h o u li 7 7 M o m ig lia n o , A rn ald o 4 3 ,
2 2 9 ,2 3 0 , 3 6 2 Jo n e s , In ig o 19 4 L iu C h a n g 7 9 6 1 ,6 2 ,6 3 ,6 8
G u a tta n i, G u ise p p e A n to n io Jo s e p h o fA rim a th e a , S t 104 L iv y 1 0 6 M o m m s e n ,T h e o d o r 3 0 5
258 Jo u a n n e t, F ra n c o is 2 8 0 , 2 9 2 L o c k e , Jo h n 1 9 0 , 1 9 6 M o n g e z , A n to in e 2 9 2
G u in e v e re 9 8 ,1 0 4 Ju lia n , E m p e r o r 82 L o u is the P io u s 9 3 M o n m o u th , G e o ffre y o f 9 7 ,
G u ib e rt de N o g e n t 9 5 , 101 Ju ssie u , A n to m e de 2 6 7 . L o u p S e r v a t,A b b e de 140
G u iz o t, F ran co is 2 8 1 2 6 8 ,2 7 0 ,2 7 1 ,3 1 9 F e rrie re s 8 9 , 9 2 M o n te liu s , O s c a r 3 2 1 , 3 2 2 ,
G u stavus A d olp h u s 1 5 7 ,1 7 6 Lo vati, L o v ato 105 3 2 3 .3 2 4
K e n d ric k ,T .D . 9 8 L u cian 1 0 0 M o n tfa u c o n , B e rn a rd de
H a b ic o t, N ic o la s 17 9 K h ae m w ase t 3 2 8 L u cretiu s 7 0 . 7 2 , 3 3 2 - 3 2 3 4 ,2 3 5 - 7 ,2 3 6 ,2 3 7 ,
H a d o rp h ,Jo s e p h 1 9 9 ,2 0 0 K husrau II 3 3 ,7 7 L u p icin u s, A b b o t 8 7 , 3 3 7 2 3 8 ,2 4 2 ,2 5 1 ,2 5 3 ,2 6 7 ,
H ad rian 1 2 6 K irc h e r, A thanasius 174 L u sie ri, G io v a n n i-B a p tis ta 2 6 8 ,2 6 8 ,2 6 9 ,2 7 7 ,2 8 3 ,
H alev i, Ju d a h 2 2 2 , 2 2 4 , 2 2 5 K n o r r, G . W. 270 2 6 1 ,2 9 8 309
H ailey, E d m u n d 2 1 2 , 2 1 8 K o r n e r u p ,J. 301 L u th e r, M artin 145 M o r tille t, G a b rie l de 3 2 1 ,
H a m ilto n , S ir W illia m 2 6 1 , K n to b o u lo s o f Im bros 1 1 1 , Lu y nes, H o n o r e -A lb e r t, 3 2 2 .3 2 4
274, 3 0 7 115 D u e de 2 8 0 ,3 0 6 M u h a m m a d .A li 2 9 6
H am m u rab i 1 7 , 18 K u rig alzu II 31 Lyell, C h arle s 2 9 4 ,3 1 4 M iilic h , H e k to r 111
H a r r io t,T h o m a s 2 2 8 M u ller, C a rl O tt fn e d 3 0 6
H arvey, W illia m 1 9 0 L ab o rd e, A le xan d re de 2 8 0 M a b illo n ,Je a n 1 9 2 ,2 3 5 M u lle r, S o p h u s 3 2 3 , 3 2 4
H au g v o n M a x e n 147 L abrou ste, H e n r i 308 M a c E n e r y .Jo h n 2 9 3 ,3 1 3 M u n ste r, Seb astian 1 4 5 , 146
H azard, Paul 2 3 3 L a ch m a n n . K arl 3 0 5 M a ffe i, S c ip io n e 2 4 6 , 2 6 6 , M u ra to ri, L A . 2 4 5
H e ca te u s o f M ile tu s 6 3 L a fita u ,Jo s e p h -F ra n c o is 2 6 7 277 M u shard , M a rtin 3 6 5 - 6
H e e m s k e rck , M a rtin van La G a r d ie , M a g n u s M agnu s, Jo h a n n e s 1 5 6
125,131 G a b r ie l d e 1 9 9 M ag n u s, O lau s 1 5 6 , 1 57, N a b o n id u s 1 3 - 1 7 , 1 8 ,2 0 ,
H e e re , Lucas de 1 4 8 ,1 5 0 , Lair. P.A . 2 8 0 1 5 9 , 16 3 2 4 ,2 8 ,3 1 ,3 4 ,4 1 ,4 4
150 L am arck . | ean -Baptiste 2 8 9 , M a h u d e l, N ic o la s 2 6 7 , 2 6 8 , N abo p o lassar 14
H e lla n ik o s 61 293 319 N a b u -a p la -id d in a 3 0 , 3 2 9
H e n d r ik 111 van C le v e 124 I ,a m in g -E m p e ra ire , A n n e tte M a im o n id e s 2 2 5 N a b u -z e r-lish ir 31
H e n n e p in , L o u is 2 9 9 277 M a jo r ,Jo h a n D a n ie l 2 0 5 - 6 , N a u d e . G a b rie l 16 0
H en ry V I, E m p eror 9 4 Lapey rere, Isaac de 2 2 2 - 4 , 2 0 7 ,2 0 8 ,2 1 1 N eb u ch a d n ez z a r 1 4 , 1 7 , 1 8 ,
H e n r y V I I I , K in g 13 9 223 , 2 2 8 - 3 1 , 2 3 4 , 2 6 8 , M a jo n u s 8 3 3 1 ,4 1
H e rcu le s 5 4 , 5 9 , 1 3 5 , 1 9 2 2 7 1 ,2 8 4 ,3 6 1 - 2 M a lh e rb e , F ra n c o is de 1 3 4 N e c k e r, Ja c q u e s 251
H e r d e r,Jo h a n n G o ttfr ie d La R a m e e , P ie r re de, see M alm esb u ry , W illia m o f N e ro 5 5 , 5 8 - 9 , 8 8
1 2 1 ,2 6 3 , 2 9 0 R a m u s , Petrus 3 3 6 -7 N e w to n , Isaac 1 9 0 , 2 1 2 , 2 1 8
H e r ic 8 9 La R u e , A b b e de 28 1 M a n so n a rio , G io v an n i 1 0 6 N ic h o la s , P o p e 9 0
H e r m a n n , L e o n h ard D av id La Sau vagere, F e lix Le M a n te g n a , A nd rea 3 3 8 N ie b u h r, B a r th o ld 3 0 5
2 0 5 ,2 0 7 R o y e r de 2 5 3 , 2 6 7 , 2 6 9 , M aran a, G io v a n n i P ao lo N izam i o f G a n ja h 3 3
H e ro d o tu s 4 3 - 5 , 44, 4 9 , 5 2 , 270 2 3 3 ,3 6 3 N o ra , P ie r re 13
5 4 , 5 5 , 6 0 - 2 , 63, 7 1 , 7 6 , Lavardin, H ild e b e rt de 94 M a n e tte , P ie rre 2 3 8 N u m a P o m p iliu s 40
1 1 1 ,1 2 6 ,2 9 5 Lav eren tzen , Jo h a n n 2 9 9 M arlian o , B a r to lo m e o 1 7 9 , N iin n in g h ,J.H . 2 0 5 , 2 0 6 ,
H e sio d 68 Le B e a u , C h arles 2 3 8 3 4 1 -3 ,3 4 2 206
H esse, P r in c e M o r itz o f 1 6 0 L e g e n d re 2 5 3 M arlo w e , C h r is to p h e r 2 2 8 N y eru p , R a sm u s 2 8 4
H e y n e , C h r is tia n -G o ttlo b L eg ran d d'A ussy, P ierre M a rsc h a lk . N ic o la u s 1 4 2 ,
290 2 7 7 - 9 , 2 8 0 , 2 8 4 ,2 9 1 1 4 2 ,1 5 3 ,1 7 4 O d ysseus 5 6
H ip p ias 6 0 , 6 1 , 6 3 , 65 L ie b n iz , W ilh e im G o ttfrie d M a rtin J a c q u e s 2 6 9 , 269 O g lan d e r, Sir J o h n 1 4 1 , 1 4 2
H o b b e s ,T h o m a s 1 9 0 , 196 206 M aso di B a n c o 101 O ld e n b u rg , P e te r von 291
382
INDEX OF N A M E S
O le a riu s, Jo h a n n C h risto p h P o n c e -C a m u s , M a r ie - S c h o e p flin ,Je a n -D a n ie l T o u rn al, Paul 2 9 3 , 2 9 4 , 3 1 0

205,207 N ic o la s 290 252,2 5 3 ,2 5 3 ,2 6 9 Trau lle, L J . 2 9 2
O re ste s 5 2 , 5 3 P o p k in . R . H . 2 2 6 Scilla, A g o stin o 231, 233, T ru d ain e . D .C . 2 5 1
O ro siu s 8 9 Po ussin, N ic o la s 136 284 Tvvitchett, D e n is 3 2 0
O rsc a n d 9 4 P re stw ic h , J o h n 3 1 4 Se p tim iu s, L u ciu s 55
O rtc lin s , A b rah am 1 4 0 £Jro co p iu s 83 Serres, M a rc e l de 2 9 3 , 2 9 4 U b e r , G e o rg 14 5
O u d aan s, Jo a c h im 194 Settala, M a n fred o 172 U b e r ti, F azio degli 121
O w e n , G e o rg e 213, 2 3 0 Q u ic c h e lb e r g , Sam u e l von Settis, Salvatore 1 0 2 U n g e r. E ck ard 3 2
O w e n , S te p h e n 7 7 1 6 8 ,1 7 0 , 174 Sh am ash 14, 1 7 , 3 0 , 3 1 , 3 2 9
Q u a tre m e r e de Q u in c y 3 0 6 S h a r-k a li-s h a r n 31 V acca, F la m m io 201
P aciau d i, P a o lo -M a ria 2 3 8 , Q u e rfu rt. C o n ra d o f 9 4 S h i H u an g d i, Q in 1 9 , 2 0 , 2 8 Vair, G u illa u m e du 1 3 4
245 S h irin 3 3 , 34 Valens 83
Palissy, B e rn a rd 2 3 0 , 231 R a b e la is , F ra n c o is 14, 3 4 1 - 3 Sib ald , R o b e r t 192 Valentinian 8 3
P an ofk a, T h e o d o r 3 0 6 R a g v a ld , N ic o la u s 15 6 S ie g frie d 11 8 Valla, L o re n z o 63
Paracelsus (T h e o p h rastu s R a le ig h ,W a lte r 2 2 8 Silviu s, A eneas, see V anini, G .C . 2 2 8
B o m b a stu s von R a m u s , Petru s 1 3 3 ,1 6 0 P ic c o lo m in i V arro 6 0 , 60, 62, 6 3 - 5 , 66,
H o h e n h e im ) 2 9 , 2 2 6 , R a n k e , L e o p o ld von 7 2 Sim a Q ia n 1 9 , 2 0 , 2 7 , 7 4 , 7 6 6 8 ,7 2 ,8 0 ,1 1 0 ,1 1 1 ,1 2 2 ,
226 R a n tz a u . H e in r ic h 1 5 0 , S o cra tes 6 0 , 61 151, 1 6 2 ,2 3 6 ,2 3 7
Paris, M a tth e w 9 8 , 9 9 , 101 1 5 2 , 1 5 3 , 1 5 7 , 164, 165 S o n g , dynasty 7 7 V au ban, Seb astian 251
Pascal, B laise 351 R a p h a e l 1 2 3 ,1 2 6 , 1 3 6 , 1 8 6 , S o r e t, F re d e ric 2 9 0 Vaultier, M .C . 2 8 0
Passeri, G io v an B attista 305 3 4 0 -1 S p a n h e im , E z e ch ie l 1 81, V e rcin g e to rix 89
P atin , C h arle s 185 R e n a n , E r n e st 121 1 8 2 , 1 8 5 . 19 4 V erelius. O l o f 1 9 9
Pausanias 4 5 , 4 6 , 4 6 , 4 8 , 5 4 , R e v e t t, N ic h o la s 25 8 , 2 6 0 S p e lm a n .Jo h n 141 V ergil, P o lv d o re 14 0
5 6 , 5 7 , 5 8 , 7 6 ,1 3 9 R h o d e , A ndreas A lb e rt 2 0 8 , S p o n , Ja c q u e s 1 8 2 , 18 4 , 1 8 5 , Vespasian 106
Pauw , C o r n e liu s de 2 8 4 2 0 8 ,2 1 1 ,211,229,237, 1 9 4 ,2 7 7 , 3 5 1 - 3 V irg il 56
Peale, C h arle s W ils o n 272 3 5 9 .3 5 9 , 3 6 6 Stabiu s. Jo h a n n e s 166 V is co n ti, E n n io Q u ir in o
P eircsc, N ic o la s F a b ri de R h o d e , C h ristian D e tle v S te e n s tr u p ja p e tu s 3 0 2 263
11 1 ,1 3 2 , 1 3 3 - 8 ,1 3 2 , 2 0 8 ,2 2 9 S te n o , N ic o la s 2 3 0 , 2 3 1 , V ite rb o , A n n io o f 3 4 5
133,136, 139, 1 4 1 , 153, R ic h a r d I, K in g 98 2 3 1 ,2 8 4 ,3 6 8 V itru v iu s 1 0 . 6 8 , 7 2 , 9 2 ,
15 4 , 1 5 5 , 1 60, 1 7 9 , 1 90, R ie n z o , C o la di 106 S to b ae u s, Kalian 267 1 0 8 ,2 0 1 ,2 7 7
1 9 4 ,2 2 1 ,2 2 9 ,2 3 3 ,2 3 8 , R is to r o d ’A rezzo 1 03. 10 4 Stra b o 2 7 , 2 8 , 3 4 V o ltaire 2 5 8 , 2 6 7 , 3 6 6 - 7
2 4 8 ,2 5 1 ,3 4 8 -5 0 ,3 4 9 R o b ie n , C h n s to p h e -P a u l de Strada. Ja c o p o 130 V o s s iu s J.G . 1 6 3
Pengelly. W illia m 3 1 3 ,3 1 4 253,269 Stu art, Ja m e s 2 5 8 , 2 6 0 V ulpius, C ..A . 2 9 1
Pe p in le B r e f 105 R u d o lp h II, E m p e r o r 14 8 S tu d io n , S im o n 148
Petau, Paul 182 R o n sa rd , P ie rre de 132 Stukeley, W illia m 1 3 , 179, W ace, R o b e r t 55
Petrarch 1 0 4 , 1 06, 1 0 8 , 111, R o s in u s , B a r th o lo m e u s 128, 212-18,214.217,218, W ake, W illia m 2 1 4
1 1 8 , 13 6 234 2 2 9 ,2 8 1 ,2 8 1 ,3 5 6 , W a lc h .J.E . 2 7 0
P e tri, O iau s 157 R o y M ata 2 3 , 2 4 , 2 4 , 2 5 . 2 8 3 5 9 -6 0 W alpo le, H o ra c e 2 4 5 , 2 4 6
Ph aedra 1 0 4 , 106 R u b e n s , P e te r Paul 132, Su g er, A b b o t o f S a in t-D e n is W eiss, R o b e r t o 10 3
Ph eid ias 2 5 8 1 3 4 .1 3 5 ,1 3 6 ,1 5 4 , 101 W e lck e r, E G . 3 0 6
P h o tiu s 8 4 3 4 8 -5 0 .3 4 9 W estp h alen , F. J . de 142
Picard , C a sim ir 2 8 0 , 2 9 2 . R u d a lt 9 4 T acitu s 5 7 . 5 8 , 1 1 5 , 1 53, W h e e le r , S ir M o r tim e r 9 9 ,
2 9 3 ,3 1 1 R u d b e c k , O l o f 1 5 3 ,2 0 0 , 1 5 4 ,2 3 0 370
Picard t, Jo h a n 1 3 , 1 4 . 1 5 1 , 200 , 2 0 1 , 2 0 1 , 2 0 3 , 2 0 3 , Taillep ied . N o e l 133 W in c k e lm a n n J o h a n n
205 2 1 1 ,2 1 8 ,2 4 5 ,3 5 4 -6 Tallg re n , A .M . 3 2 4 Jo a c h im 2 4 6 , 2 5 1 , 2 5 8 ,
P ic c o lo m in i, Hnea S ilv io d e ’ R u lm a n ,A n n e de 251 T an cre d o f S icily 9 8 2 6 0 -3 ,2 6 4 ,2 6 6 ,2 7 1 ,
(P ius II) 1 11, 1 1 4 , 1 15, R u p r e c h t , Sain t 8 5 . 88 T a n u cc i, B e rn a rd o 2 4 5 2 7 2 ,2 9 0 ,2 9 5 ,3 0 4 ,3 0 6 ,
1 1 6 , 1 1 8 , 1 2 3 ,3 3 9 - 4 0 R u s p i, C a rlo 306 T h e o d o r ic 8 3 , 8 4 , 8 4 , 1 97, 3 0 7 ,3 2 1 ,3 5 4 ,3 6 3 -5
Pius II, see P ic c o lo m in i 335 W o lf, L A . 3 0 9
P ig g o tt, S tu a rt 1 5 4 , 2 12 Sacy. Sylvestre de 2 9 8 T h e o d o siu s 8 7 , 88 W o o d w a rd ,Jo h n 2 8 4
Pindar 2 2 - 4 , 23 S a in t-F o n d , B . Faujas de 271 T h e o p h ra stu s B o m b astu s W o rm , O le 3 6 , 1 5 3 ,1 5 4 ,
P in o n , P ierre 2 5 6 S a i n t - N o n ,J .C .R ., A b b o t von H o h e n h e im , see 1 5 7 .1 6 0 -7 ,1 6 1 ,1 6 4 ,
P in tard , R e n e 2 2 2 ,2 2 8 245 Paracelsus 1 7 0 ,1 7 4 , 17 6 . 1 7 7 , 1 79,
P in tu ric c h io (B e rn a rd in o Salt, H e n r y 2 9 6 T h o m s e n , C h ristia n 1 8 0 ,1 8 8 ,1 9 0 ,1 9 1 ,1 9 6 ,
B e tti) 116 S am b u cu s, Jo h a n n e s 128 Ju rg e n se n 2 9 9 - 3 0 1 ,3 0 0 , 1 9 7 ,2 0 0 ,2 0 1 ,2 2 6 ,2 2 9 ,
Pisano, N ic o la 1 0 4 ,1 0 6 Sarg on II 41 3 0 3 , 373 2 3 0 ,2 3 7 ,2 7 7 ,2 7 8 ,3 2 1 ,
P itt-R iv e r s , A ugustus 3 2 2 - 4 S a x o G ram m aticu s 15 6 T h o rw a ld sen . B e r te l 3 0 5 362
P lato 2 5 , 2 6 , 5 7 , 6 0 , 6 2 ,7 0 . Saxony , A n n e o f 145 T h o u , F ran co is A u g u ste de W orsely. R ic h a r d 2 6 0
2 1 8 ,2 3 7 ,3 3 1 S c h e llin g , F rie d r ich W . 3 0 5 134 W orsaae, Je n Ja c o b 3 0 1 ,3 0 2
P liny 5 7 , 5 8 , 1 2 5 ,1 5 1 ,2 0 1 S c h e u c h z e r, Jo h a n n Ja c o b T h ra sy b o u lo s 2 2
P lo t, R o b e r t 1 9 8 .1 9 8 , 2 8 4 2 8 5 ,2 8 6 T h u cy d id e s 2 6 - 8 , 4 4 , 4 5 , 46. X e n o c ra te s 22
P lu tarch 5 1 , 5 4 , 55 S c h in k e l, K a r l- F r ie d n c h 4 8 -5 1 .6 1 ,6 2 ,6 5 ,6 8 ,7 1 , X i e H u ilia n 7 4 , 3 2 9 - 3 0
P o lan i, N ic o lo 123 264 7 2 ,1 0 6
P o lo , M a rc o 45 Sc h le sw ig . D u k e o f 146 T is c h b e in , W ilh e lm 274, Z h a o M in g c h e n g 7 4 , 77
P olybius 4 4 , 6 0 , 65 Sc h lie m a n n , H e in r ic h 3 0 9 291,292 Z o e g a , G e o rg 3 0 5
P o m ian , K rzy szto i 1 1 , 12, S c h m e rlin g , P h ilip p e — T itu s Livius 4 0 , 10 5
2 7 , 1 2 5 , 1 6 7 .3 7 9 C h arles 2 9 4 ,2 9 4 , 3 1 0 T itia n 130, 18 6
Pom pey 63 Sch n ap p e r. A n to in e 2 4 8 T iT o n g o a L iseirik i 2 3
383
P H O T O G R A P H I C
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
A lin a ri—A n d e rso n —G irau d o n : 106 G aran g er J . : 2 4

A lin ari—B r o g i—G ira u d o n : 11i7 J . Paul G e tty M u se u m , M alib u : 13 6
A lin a r i-G ira u d o n : 103(t) G irau d o n : 9 0 , 93
A n tik v a n sk -to p o g ra fisk a arkiver. S to c k h o lm : 2 9 9 H u o t J - L .: 17
A rchives C a ste rm a n . Paris: 14 Istituco A rc h e o lo g ic o G e r m a n ic o . R o m e : 5 9 . 3 0 6 , 3 o 7
A rd h v io di S ta to .T u rin : 127(b ) K n n sth alle. H am b u rg / E lk e W alford : 2 7 8
A rto th e k : 9 1 ,2 9 2 K u n sth isto risch es M u se u m ,V ie n n a : 130
A ustralian N a tio n a l G allery, C a n b e rra : 13 2 L an d esm u seu m , O ld e n b u rg / I I. R . W ack er: 2 7 4
B a y e risch e Staatsb ib lio ch ek , M u n ic h : 1 0 0 ,2 6 2 C h ristian l.arrie u / L a L ic o r n e : 3 0 5
B e rard C .: 5 2 , 53 L a u ro s-G ira u d o n : 2 9 0
B ib lio te c a A p osto lica Vaticana: 5 6 (t), 5 8 . 1 0 8 , 115 M etro p o lita n M u se u m o f A rt. N e w Y ork: 71
B ib lio te c a H e rtz ia n a , R o m e : 4 0 M u se e G u im e t 7 5 (t)
B ib lio te c a N a z io n a le C e n tra le , F lo r e n c e : 2 6 M u se u m C .iro Jin o A u g u steu m , Salzbu rg: 31 I
B ib lio th e q u e d 'A rt et d ’A rc h e o lo g ie , Paris: 2 8 5 M u se u m fur K u n sth an d w e rk , F ran k fu rt: 147(1)
B ib lio th e q u e du M u seu m natio n al d ’h isto ire naturelle, M u se u m fur K u n st und G e w e rb c . H a m b u rg : 1 4 7 (r)
Paris: 2 7 0 , 271 N aro d m G a le n e , P rag ue: 12 4
B ib lio th e q u e h u m an iste. Selestat: 9 2 N ation al G allery o f C an ad a. O ttaw a: 10
B ib lio th e q u e m u m eip ale, R e n n e s : 2 5 4 , 2 5 5 N ie d e rsach sisch e S taats- und U n iv ersita tsb ib lio th e k .
B ib lio th e q u e natio n ale. Pan s: 16, 2 8 , 2 9 , 3 5 , 3 6 , 4 2 , 4 3 , 5 5 , G o ttin g e n : 2 0 7 (r), 21 1(b)
6 0 ,6 6 , 6 7 , 6 9 , 7 2 , 73, 75, 77, 81, 82. 8 8 . 9 5 - 7 ,1 1 1 ,1 1 8 . Peale M u se u m , B a ltim o re : 2 7 2
1 20, 127 (t), 1 3 5 , 1 3 7 , 1 4 4 - 6 , 1 5 4 , 1 5 5 , 1 5 7 , 1 6 1 (b ), 1 6 4 , P ierp o n c M o rg an Library, N e w Y o rk : 3 4 8
1 69, 1 7 1 - 3 , 1 75, 1 76, 1 8 0 , 1 8 2 - 5 , 1 89, 1 92, 1 9 5 ,1 9 7 , P ix : 2 0 , 21 (t), 4 9
1 9 8 , 2 0 0 - 2 0 3 , 207(1), 2 2 0 , 2 2 3 , 2 3 1 , 2 3 2 , 2 3 9 - 4 4 , P rivate c o lle c tio n s: 1 5 ,2 1 (b ), 2 5 , 3 1 , 3 2 . 3 4 , 4 8 , 5 7 . 6 2 , 6 3 .
2 4 7 - 5 3 , 2 5 7 , 2 5 8 , 2 5 9 (b ), 2 6 1 , 2 6 4 , 2 6 5 , 2 6 9 , 2 8 0 , 2 8 6 - 9 , 7 5 (b ), 7 8 , 1 0 9 , 1 1 0 (r), 1 2 6 , 128, 1 2 9 , 1 5 8 . 1 5 9 , 1 6 6 ,1 6 7 ,
2 9 4 -7 . 300. 308, 312, 313, 341. 343, 346, 362, 370 1 8 6 -8 , 205, 206, 208, 2 0 9 , 211, 2 3 6 , 2 3 7 , 2 5 7 , 2 6 8 . 301,
B ib lio th e q u e royale A )b e r t-Icr. B r u x elle s: 3 8 , 8 6 , 87 3 1 6 ,3 3 7 ,3 5 7
B ib lio th e q u e S a in te -G e n e v ie v e / S tu d io E th e l: 123 R e u n io n des m usees n a tio n a u x , Paris: 4 1 . 5 6 (b ), 8 9 , 1 3 3 ,
B ib lio th e q u e un iversitaire, B asle: 14 8 227, 263
B ild a rch iv Preussischer K u ltu rb e sitz. B e rlin : 125 R o y a l In stitu te o f B ritish A rc h itec ts, L o n d o n : 2 5 9 (t)
B ild arch iv P reu ssischer K u ltu rb esit7, R o y a l L ib ra ry C o p e n h a g e n : 1 5 2 . 1 5 3 . 1 61t
B e rlin / Jo r g P A nd ers: 2 6 4 - 5 Sain t L o u is A rt M u se u m , Sain t Louis: 2 7 6
B o d le ia n Library, O x fo r d : 1 1 4 .1 3 9 , 1 78. 1 91, 1 93, 194, S c a b : 8 4 , 101, 1 16, 117
2 1 4 -1 8 S o c ie ty o t A n tiq u aries, L o n d o n : 2 8 2
B ritis h Library, L o n d o n : 1 2 ,9 9 . 1 1 2 , 1 13, 15ll, 1 5 1 ,2 1 3 ,2 8 1 Staats- und S ta d tb ib lio th e k , A u gsbu rg: 1 10(1)
J o h n C h a d w ick , L in e a r B an d R e la te d Scriprs, B ritis h M u seu m Staats- un d U n iv ersita tsb ib lio th e k , H am b u rg : 291
P u b lic a tio n s. 1 9 8 7 , tig. 1 U n iv ersitv Library, C a m b rid g e : 1 4 2 , 143
C N H M S / S P A D E M , Paris: 1 02, 103(b ) Vatican M useu m s and G allerie s: 47
M a ster and F ellow s o f C o rp u s C h n s ti C o lle g e . W iltsh ire A rc h a e o lo g ica l and N atu ral H isto ry So ciety .
C a m b rid g e : 9 4 D e v iz e s: 2 8 3
D ag li O r ti: 2 3 , 4 4 , 4 6 , 5 0 W iir tte m b e r g is c h c L an d e sb ib lio th e k , Stu ttg art: 149
E d im ed ia: 3 1 4 Y orkshire M u se u m ,Y o rk : 9 8
Frans H als M u se u m , H aarlem : 131
38 4

The Discovery of The Past The Origins of Archaeology Alain Schnapp PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Discovery of The Past The Origins of Archaeology Alain Schnapp PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Discovery of The Past The Origins of Archaeology Alain Schnapp PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What are some of the key chapters discussed in the book?

What are some of the key chapters discussed in the book?

DISCOVERY

AND CARL-AXEL MOBERG

© E ditions C arre , Paris, 1993

English ed itio n and translation © 1996 T h e Trustees o f the B ritish M useum

First published in English in 1996 by B ritish M u seu m Press

A division o f T h e B ritish M u seu m C o m p a n y Ltd

First published in 1993 by Editions C arre, Paris

Translated from th e French by Ian K innes and G illianV arndell

T h e publishers th a n k th e C en tre nationale des lettres for th e ir su pport

o f th e English translation o f this w ork.

A catalogue reco rd fo r this b o o k is available from the B ritish Library

by Im ago Publishing Ltd

Preface to the F rench E d itio n

T A he idea for this b o o k was sug­

M ich el Gras, P ier-G io v an n i G uzzo, Francois H arto g , Francis Haskell,

T JL h e discovery o f the past is n o t ju st

H istory, such as it is still practised today, is a p ro d u c t (am ongst

Professor o f the C ollege de France,

I n the se d e c a d e n t ti m e s we f a l l in love w i t h a n t i q u i t i e s a n d a l l o w o ur sel ves

in s i g n i a , b r o n z e seals decor ated w i t h tu rtle s a n d dragons, b r o n z e tiles fr o m

goblet, any k i n d o f a n tiq u e vessel - a n d we comb the a n c i e n t te x t s in order

th e m o m e n t o f th e ir em erg en ce as a cu ltural and biological entity,

th a t th e arch aeo lo g ist is a co llecto r, b u t o f a p artic u la r k in d , m ore

P ie rre N o ra , in his w ritin g s, rem inds us th a t th ere are places w h ere

T h e pierre levee near

a c c o u n t is th a t he is acting consciously and m ethodically. T h e B aby­

th e evidence o f th e ir passing show ed th at th ey w ere conscious o f th e

d ream ed o f fo u n d in g an im m o rtal dynasty; he decreed th at his heirs

L isten! It is the field o f A phrodite

N either rain driven from afar on the storm,

T h e m o n u m e n t w h ic h P in d ar d ed icated to X en o crates o f A g ri-

th e rich ? D o p o em s an d songs rep resen t an altern ativ e to m o n u ­

poem s, proclaim ing

T h e build in g o f c o m p are th e m to o th e rs an d so date an d a ttrib u te th e m to these

th e b u rial practice was sim ilar to th at o f a p eo p le w ell k n o w n to the

w ere used as sym bols o f p o w er (N ab o n id u s, Q in Shi H u an g d i, R o y

th e desire fo r objects m ay p reju d ice th e chances o f th e ir discovery.

co n sid e re d by its b u ild e r to b e a tru ly great m arvel o f arch itectu re,

T h e fabric o f h isto ry is a fragile th in g , b u t archaeology w ill always

A bove: A ‘th u n d e rb o lt’ th an as objects shaped by th e h a n d o f m an. H isto ry o f th e k n o w ledge

n o t a loose h isto ry o f th e progress o f k now ledge. It is m u ch m o re

1 D o m b ro v sk i 1979 24 B o u ch e r de Perthes 1847, p. 16.

ANTI QUE AND

A single letter shines between two p o in ts and this single sign,

N o o ne can k n o w for c e r t a i n . T h e b r o k e n l e t te rs rest here, t h e i r l in e s

m u t i l a t e d , a n d in the c o n f u s i o n o f characters the m e a n i n g has been lost.

A U SO N 1U S, OX TIIIJ V I / w ,/ -' \ ' i i > ! \ A M Rl i i . l - . , Of A CIAHAIS IA C I A \

w have always k n o w n , and the

soil. T h e y believe them selves, th ro u g h th e ir k now ledge, delegated to

o b jects, c h o se n for th e ir in d iv id u al qualities, w h ic h d istin g u ish ed

Polidoro da for k n o w led g e m ad e every trace w o rth y o f reco rd in g and, if possible,

N ab o n id u s, conscious o f b ein g the co n tested in h e rito r o f a lo n g tradi­

Kuihtrru, o r deed o f a lo n g line o f royal predecessors; he drew on his kn o w led g e and th at o f

m o n u m e n ts w ere naturally sym bolic. Also th e scribes, royal architects

THE INVENTION OF HISTORY

T A he idea for this b o o k was sug

a c c o u n t is th a t he is acting consciously and m ethodically. T h e B aby

th e rich ? D o p o em s an d songs rep resen t an altern ativ e to m o n u

N ab o n id u s, conscious o f b ein g the co n tested in h e rito r o f a lo n g tradi

an d fo rem o st a m o n g th e m T h u cy d id es, co uld n o t w h o lly free th e m

U n lik e th e treasures o f th e heroes, th e tem ple treasuries had a collec

approaches and the advances in technique. Fol

««•rif-friit/w/r tr/yMWnA nr/hif»»p-w«mrrti

kin g fish er feathers; the h ousehold h a d no im p lem en ts f o r g ild in g or em broi