chosen supplement the statements of the Greek historians.

In the whole history of Athens there is perhaps nothing more tragic than the ill-fated Sicilian Expedition, no time when hopes rose to a greater height, only to be overwhelmed in utter destruction. Thucydides (III, 86) speaks of the first interference of the Athenians in Sicilian affairs when, at the invitation of the Leontini and the people of Rhegium, they were persuaded to send ships to aid them against Syracuse. Two fragments of inscriptions recording treaties between the Athenians and these people, probably refer to this incident.

Sometimes, however, we have no historical background into which to fit the archæological evidence. For example, the famous inscription in very archaic characters giving terms of a treaty between the Eleans and the Hermans at some time between 550

and 500 B. C. cannot be referred to any alliance of

which we have further information.

The colonization of outlying lands began at an early time among the Greeks and was always a conspicuous feature in their public economy. Many inscriptions about colonies are extant, and, as would naturally be expected, they follow rather closely the policy and organization of the mother city and are sometimes responsible to her. A well-known inscription refers to Brea, one of the Thracian colonies sent out during the administration of Pericles. Provisions for its connection with Athens are shown in the appointment of a board of overseers, in contributions to the Athenian festival and in the reservation of temple funds.

To turn now to Greece in foreign relations other than friendly, we find a most interesting monument erected to commemorate a great victory in war. The traveller Pausanias (X. 13, 5.) during his visit to Delphi saw an offering from the battle of Platea which he describes as a golden tripod resting on a bronze serpent." He says, 'the bronze part of the offering is preserved to this day, but the Phocian captains did not leave the gold in quite the same condition."

The saviours of spacious Greece dedicated this (tripod),

Having rescued the cities from hateful slavery." The originals of both epigrams have been lost, probably the second was written on the stone pedestal and possibly the first may have been, although some think that it was engraved on the coils of the serpent and afterwards erased. But the settlement of that question does not seem very important in comparison with its interest as an example of the poem of one of the famous nine lyric poets, preserved in the anthology, quoted by the historians and inscribed on this very monument.

This inscription is in Laconian characters, but as a general thing we have few inscriptions of the Spartans compared with those of the Athenians. It is to Attic inscriptions that we turn for most of our information regarding the administration of affairs. The so-called Tribute Lists" record the sums given or due from the dependent states of the Athenian Empire. Our information about the list of states, the years when they belonged, the amount of tribute paid, and many other details is drawn very largely from these documents.

Such records as the inventories of the treasures stored in the Parthenon or in other buildings give us an idea of the wealth of the state, and other inscriptions telling of the borrowings from these funds in time of need show that the function of the temple treasure-rooms must often have been very like that of our banks of the present day.

The Greek love of good form is seen in the reports of special commissions appointed for the performance of special duties. There are inscriptions referring to the construction of all the important buildings on the Acropolis, in some of which the expenditures are recorded down to the last obol, even broken columns are accounted for.

The foregoing examples will perhaps show a few ways in which our knowledge of Greek history has been aided by the study of inscriptions, but in the case of Roman history they are far more frequently our only source of information particularly during the empire. In the time of the later republic the literary evidence is abundant and the archæological evidence meager, but in the empire after the best and earliest years the literary sources become more and more inadequate while the inscriptions multiply at an enormous rate, and so it is largely through them that we are able to trace the gradual development of the policy and administration at a period when we have no Tacitus to consult. And this knowledge has come as a result of careful and painstaking collating of many small things trifling in themselves, but contributing each in its own way to the general result.

It has been already suggested that coins are an extremely valuable source of information since they too are official documents, of a standard weight

adopted by the issuing power, bearing on their surface the type or arms of the city, and often countersigned by the magistrates in charge of the mint, often of great importance on the artistic side and occasionally signed with the name of the die-engraver. Since coins are small and easily transported they were carried about from place to place and are thus one of our most useful sources for trade-routes and ancient commerce. They afford clues not only to commercial but to political relations. The alliance of certain cities is shown by the use of coins based on a common standard. In the Greek world there were three standards, and if we find one used in widely scattered places it is reasonable to infer that a common medium of exchange was desired. Another way of showing an alliance is by combining the types of the two allied cities, one on each side, or by issuing federal coins as was done by the Arcadian and Achaean Leagues each of which had a common mint which supplied the same coins to all the federated cities.

Coins were often made in commemoration of some great event, and one of the best illustrations of this is the four-drachma piece struck in 306 B. C. by Demetrius Poliorcetes after his defeat of Ptolemy. On the prow of a galley stands a Victory blowing a trumpet, an interesting reproduction of the famous Niké of Samothrace now in the Louvre. It is only one of the many coins which reproduce famous works of art, but we can rarely connect such coins with any historical event.

The evidence of the vases is of a somewhat different nature from that of inscriptions or coins, for as has already been suggested those are official documents bearing the stamp or seal of authority, while the pottery brings us into much closer touch with the everyday life of the people. They bear about the same relation to the inscriptions and coins that familiar personal letters bear to dignified state documents or to formal literature. Even the inscriptions upon some of them show the personal idiosyncracy of the writer either by the peculiar shape of a letter or the distinctive style of spelling whether it be simplified or phonetic. These inscriptions indicate. that certain changes in letter forms are of gradual growth and become more and more general until the stamp of official approval is set upon them.

The very fact that these vases do not represent the official expression of the state gives them a point of view at once more personal and more ingenuous. The representation on a vase of a merry party of drunken revellers, singing and dancing through the streets, may refer to that same incident in the cheerful career of Alcibiades of which we are told in the pages of Andocides or of which we learn the official penalties in the inscriptions concerning those involved in the mutilation of the Hermæ. It may refer to no such definite incident, but the painter would not hesitate to treat the subject in that spirit. Very few scenes on the pottery can be referred to any particular historical event, and yet it is true that the Greeks had a number of historical paintings, such as the Battle of

Mantinæa and the Battle of Marathon in certain colonnades at Athens. Judging from the description, these combine fact and fiction in pleasing variety, since Miltiades appears in company with Athena and Heracles.

This illustrative quality is by no means the most important function of the vases in their relation to history. Perhaps their greatest service in this direction has been in dating sites discovered. We have already seen that inscriptions can be dated with approximate accuracy and would therefore be a good guide, but let us picture to ourselves a site belonging to the period before inscriptions were in general use, a simple grave, perhaps, where we have no architecture or sculpture to help us in assigning a date, where the weapons and instruments may belong anywhere within the bronze age, and it is in a case of this sort that we turn to the vases or even fragments. Again and again we find that it is from the heaps of rubbish composed largely of little scraps of pottery that we determine when a certain civilization flourished, for though a vase may be broken to bits it is almost impossible to destroy the fragments unless they are ground to powder since they are impervious to the effects of dirt or moisture. Bronze lying in the earth may become so corroded that it is practically impossible to restore, or it may yield only to frequent soaking in diluted acids, but the vase rarely needs more than a good scrubbing in water to make it intelligible. The systematic establishment of this chronology is of recent date and has now been built upon a firm basis. As excavations progress, we note the discovery of new styles, some of which fit into the general framework, others of which seem to strike out in new lines, but the problems still left to settle are those of style-development and mutual influences rather than dates. The question naturally arises "How has this chronology been built up?"

Sometimes we are fortunate enough to find several settlements one on top of another and then the only question is "How much earlier was each of the lower strata?" By gradually using the known as a touchstone for the unknown our field of knowledge widens and the dates of certain periods may be fixed with greater accuracy. The whole Attic chronology has been revised within the last couple of decades in the light of certain definite information. For many

years it had been known that the Attic ware in which the design was painted in black on the light clay background (technically known as the black figured ware) preceded that in which the design was left in the clay color and the background was painted black (red-figured ware). The logical progress of design from stiffness to greater freedom made this plain, but at what date did the red-figured ware first come into importance? The old theory suggested that it was introduced after the Persian Wars at the time when Greek art in general advanced with such great strides. But at the time when the Athenian Acropolis was excavated down to bed-rock, there in the strata of rubbish by means of which the surface of the rock was

built up to a level platform for the rebuilding of the temples destroyed by the Persians in 480 B. C., were found many fragments of the red-figured style of an advanced kind, showing that at least a generation must have been necessary for its development and pushing the date of its introduction back to the latter part of the sixth century. The inferences drawn from the results of this excavation form one of the cornerstones for the dating of Greek vase-painting and whenever pottery of the style of the Acropolis fragments is discovered it may safely be assigned to this period.

Most travellers to Greece try to visit the site of the battle of Marathon, the vast plain bounded by the mountains and the sea whose level surface is broken only by the single mound erected over the Athenians who fell in battle. And the very sim1plicity characteristic of a noble achievement is well symbolized by the finds within this mound which consisted of little beside the bones of the heroic dead and the broken vases buried with them. With a single exception these belonged to the black-figured style, and as we know that the mound was erected in 490 B. C., we have evidence that even several years after the introduction of the red-figured ware the blackfigured continued in use for funeral purposes. 5 abrupt abandonment of one style for another was hardly to be expected, particularly as we know that certain painters used both styles on the same vase.

1

1

The

It is impossible to speak even in the most cursory way of the historical evidence from sculpture and architecture. The Greeks did not have the habit of historical representation such as the Romans used on their triumphal arches or columns. The tendency of Greek art was symbolic rather than pictorial, the commemorative statue serves not so much for the glorification of the giver as for an offering to a god, the dedications out of the spoils were always to Phoebus, to Zeus, to Athena, or to some other god as the case might be, the reliefs were generally parts of temples and as such embodied myths of the gods

or of those heroes whose deeds were of such ancient

fame that they belonged almost to the mythical period.

In general, the foregoing illustrations have shown how archeology supplements history and how the two encourage and stimulate each other. The student who has before him a picture of the lion erected at Cheronea over the tomb of the warriors slain there, or who holds in his hand a coin bearing the head of Alexander the Great will be less likely to regard history as merely a succession of dates, and archæology as a dull science about dug-up rubbish.

The divorce of the two is impossible, but sometimes it is one which takes the lead and sometimes the other. Archæology has to be our chief guide in cases where the written records are inadequate for one of these reasons: because records of a kind we can read were not yet in existence, because the history of a certain nation was not put together in connected form, but furnishes only isolated information regard

ing their relation to other peoples, or because a place was unimportant and chiefly of local fame.

Until within a few years the prehistoric period was rightly so-called. We knew very little about it, the literary traditions were extremely vague, the statements very general and there was no way of confirming or disproving existing literary authorities. The passing references in authors like Thucydides or Herodotus were regarded as blind gropings in a vague mist into which the light of research was unlikely to penetrate. The poems of Homer were interpreted in various ways, ranging from those who like Schliemann retained a childlike belief in the absolute literal truth of every word to those skeptics who should have taken for their motto the famous recantation addressed to Helen of Troy which begins, This is not a true story; you never embarked upon the ships with their banks of rowers, nor did you ever go to the towers of Troy." Archæology beginning with the brilliant finds in the excavations at Mycena in 1876 has laid before us a picture of a civilization corresponding in many respects to that of Homer, though in some ways still more wealthy and splendid than that described by the poet. The recent excavations in Crete have brought to light a civilization antedating that of Mycenae, and except for the gorgeous gold work Crete was far more sumptuous. A whole vast wonderland of art has been revealed to us, and from the great palace at Cnossus we find innumerable frescoes showing the life of those days, sculptures, stone-carving, and thousands of clay tablets which have not yet been deciphered but which show well-established systems of writing hundreds of years before our first inscription in Greek characters. These discoveries in the very stronghold of King Minos go far towards confirming the statement about the Minoan sea-power made by Thucydides (I, 4). Crete is not the only land which has furnished new evidence, though the splendor of the discoveries there overshadows other achievements, but further investigations throughout the Aegean islands have enabled us to reconstruct an outline picture of the preMycenaean civilization to which new elements are being added from day to day.

The prehistoric period of Italy is known to us almost entirely from archæology. We have no Italic Homer to describe the glories of the past age, almost no literary evidence beyond the most general statements. The late development of Roman history did not encourage researches into the remote past. Italic prehistoric archæology is still in its infancy and offers some of the most fascinating problems in the history of antiquity. It is in the solving of problems of this kind that the archeologist finds his greatest opportunities for constructive work and at the same time the greatest pitfall for the unwary.

A further illustration of how archæology is our chief guide may be seen in the case of the Etruscans. These people belong to the historic period, but they have no connected history; here and there we glean facts about their relations to other peoples, but it is no less true of them than of Hannibal that their his

tory has been written chiefly by their enemies. We have their written records, but we cannot read them, the Etruscan language is still a puzzle, and with the exception of a few proper names or simple common words they are absolutely undecipherable. And so until a new Rosetta stone turns up, we are almost as badly off as if we had no inscriptions. The racial problem is still a matter of controversy. And yet there are few people with whose national life we are more familiar because of the monuments they have left behind them. Through these we can trace the life of an Etruscan from the cradle to the grave, from childhood through manhood in its manifold relations at work, at play, in a private or in an official capacity, all forming a picture as complete as any we have of Greece or Rome. Their foreign relations are known to us largely through archæology. There must have been some close connection with the Orient, as the numerous finds attest, then came a period of Greek influence. The familiar story of the migration of Demaratus of Corinth with his sons to Etruria is confirmed by the quantities of Corinthian pottery in the Etruscan sepulchres; that she must have stood in near relation to Athens is shown by the enormous number of Attic vases found in the tombs.

As a final illustration the sanctuary of Despoina near Lycosura in Arcadia has been chosen because it affords such a good illustration of the value of cumulative evidence. Our only literary authority about the sanctuary was Pausanias who describes in detail the buildings and other monuments within the precinct, as well as the group of statues made for the temple by Damophon of Messene. It was with Pausanias as a guide that excavations were undertaken in 1889 by the Greek Archæological Society and the discoveries are a striking proof of his accuracy and reliability. He describes the sanctuary as in a flourishing condition in his time (the middle of the second century A. D.), but does not say when it was established. For many years the date of Damophon of Messene had been one of the problems of archaology. Pausanias seems to have been particularly interested in him and mentions several of his works which were set up in various cities, among them Megalopolis and Messene, his native town. At Messene there was a group representing, among others, Epaminondas, and the City of Thebes which was the work of Damophon, though Pausanias expressly states that Epaminondas was the work of a different artist. The natural inference was that the grateful Messenians erected the statue of Epaminondas in honor of his services in the battle of Mantinea and on the occasion of the founding of Megalopolis in 370 B. C. For these reasons Damophon was generally assigned in most books on sculpture to the fourth century B. C. The excavations brought to light statues of a style utterly different from what might have been expected. The statues did not look like fourth-century work, and the excavations had shown that the lower parts of the temple and the base made for the statues were undoubtedly contemporary, therefore, any definite information about one

would apply equally to the other. Critics were divided into three camps, most of them basing their arguments on the style of the statues, those who thought the statues couldn't possibly be Greek and who, therefore, assigned them to the period of revival under Hadrian; those who dated them in the second century B. C.; and those who dated them in the fourth century B. C., either because of the style, or on the historical grounds mentioned above. There was no difficulty in disproving the first view, so it need not be discussed. Since the evidence as a whole had not been considered it seemed desirable to reconcile if possible the historical and archæological views which appeared to conflict.

Investigation of the historical side showed that though the inference in favor of the fourth century was the natural one, the condition of the cities in which the works of Damophon were set up was such as to warrant the erection of these statues in the second century, that there was plenty of evidence both architectural and epigraphical for the restoration of Megalopolis after its destruction in 222 B. C., and that the cities mentioned above were very prominent in the Achæan League of the second century.

The archæological evidence consisted chiefly of the architecture of the temple, and of inscriptions discovered in the precinct. The temple was found to belong to any time from the fourth to the second centuries B. C., and so was no more conclusive than the historical evidence, but admitted two possibilities. The inscriptions belonged with a single exception from the second century B. C. to the second century A. D., and if the precinct had existed as early as the fourth century, it would have been strange that no earlier inscriptions came to light.

In confirmation of this date were several inscriptions (from Megalopolis and Olympia) about a school of sculptors who flourished at Messene in the second century B. C., and at Messene were found fragments of second century inscriptions, one of which bore the name of Damophon in almost complete form, the other in a mutilated state. Therefore it was natural to conclude that the establishment of the cult and the date of the statues was the second century B. C.

This shows on a small scale the importance of every little bit of evidence, and that often it is not until the structure is nearly built up that we realize what it will prove to be.

Thus we see very clearly that the history written at the present day must differ greatly from that of even thirty years ago. But the history of the present day cannot be final, for new material is constantly coming to light. This is both discouraging and encouraging, for often what appears to be an excellent solution of a problem is disproved by the discovery of new material, while on the other hand, the very thing needed to throw a flood of light on an uncertain point may turn up at any moment. But more important than the settling of any single question is the fact that archæological discoveries make dogmatic statements impossible, make us keep an open mind, and prevent that enemy of progress, stagnation.

A recent careful scrutiny of the status of history in the high schools of the State of Wisconsin and a comparison of the findings thus obtained with those resulting from a similar investigation of ten years. ago show conclusively that the subject of history has gained quantitatively in that period. More courses are offered in it and more pupils are taking it than ever before. As in Wisconsin, so it appears, is its status generally throughout the country. Qualitatively, however, the situation is not so satisfactory. As the results of the examinations conducted by the College Entrance Examination Board show, there has not been a corresponding increase in these years in the power of the history teacher to secure those values which the subject is good for. All of us who have had opportunity to evaluate the product of history-teaching through observation in the high school or through contact in college with students who have been trained under it know well that, while some excellent results are being achieved, more in this than in the older subjects of the curriculum there is much ineffective effort.

It is, of course, to be expected that the languages, mathematics, and the natural sciences should have attained a degree of effectiveness of method, of excellence in the tools for teaching, and of definiteness of content that history has not yet had time to reach. One feature of this superiority in method that the older subjects possess is that the teachers of them have learned to expect and know how to obtain proper study from their pupils; with very many teachers of history, on the other hand, the pupil's study of the subject is identified with the reading over of the lesson, and so the teacher's expectation of the pupil's effort and industry has to be satisfied with an inadequate form of intellectual labor.

Years ago some of us tried to find in high school text-books, made up entirely of extracts from source material and thus embodying the laboratory or source I method, the solution of our difficulty, for one undoubted virtue of these books was that to get his leson from them the pupil had really to work, had to buckle down and dig. But this expectation was not realized in the judgment of most of us because time, adequacy of source material, and sufficient intellectual maturity on the part of the pupil were all found to be lacking, and so while the study of source material still retains an important place, the principal reliance of the teacher is again the narrative text-book. In brief, the reading that the ordinary high school pupil does is still not effective study and does not secure adequate results. How far from adequate this is as preparation of his lesson can be appreciated by a consideration of what it means in terms of intellectual effort for the pupil to learn his history lesson from his text-book.

Of course, in the first place he must read in the endeavor to get the meaning of his text-book sentence by sentence. But this for many, undirected and unstimulated, is an unachieved aim through their scantiness of vocabulary and their habit of skipping new words or guessing at their meaning.

In the second place, the ideas these sentences convey have to be associated together, the necessary inter-relations must be made in order to secure an understanding of the paragraph or sections of which they are parts. And this understanding progresses as connections are established in the pupil's mind not only with kindred elements in the paragraph but also with related knowledge already in his possession. This possessed knowledge of his which has possibility of contact and connection with aspects of his history lesson is very comprehensive, for it includes what history he has hitherto learned, what he knows of kindred subjects, of current happenings, of facts of his social environment, of facts of his own experience. Incorporation of the new ideas into this body of knowledge is a necessary part of the learning process. Moreover, it is highly desirable that such connections shall be set up between aspects of the subject and the pupil's nature that he shall feel himself personally involved, shall discover that there is in it worth for him individually and so shall become genuinely interested in it.

But these new ideas are not yet adequately grasped, for paragraph has relation to paragraph, and the history lesson as a whole must have correct organization in the pupil's mind. That which is most important must bulk so for him, and the subsidiary must take its due place. Those features of the subject which act as causes must be understood in their casual relations, and those that are results must be recognized as such.

For thorough understanding, then, these other intellectual activities must be set up which function in analysis, comparison, evaluation, and grouping. These various operations of the mind have been referred to as though they were consecutive; in point of fact they may, of course, be in considerable degree simultaneous. The order of their progress is, however, unimportant in this discussion, which seeks merely to emphasize their existence as essential elements in the learning process.

Imagination is another intellectual faculty that must be stirred to action, so that the breath of life may seem to be in the historic personalties and the spirit of reality in the events, and that the truths of history may be given "warmth and intimacy;" for, as the Report of the Committee of Five insists, "the learning of history is not attained by any unreal and impersonal treatment of institutions and processes." Not only is it the fact that truths are felt