Note that at the time of this lecture being given by Arthur Evans, in 1884, the Ashmolean Museum was situated in what is now the Museum of the History of Science on Broad Street. He talks in the lecture of plans to upgrade the Ashmolean Museum but at some point these plans must have changed to providing a new building for the collections adjacent to the University Galleries. However, it was not until 1894 that the Ashmolean Museum moved alongside the University Galleries, into new building at the rear of the existing ones on the corner of St Giles and Beaumont Street (where it still remains); and not until 1908 that the two institutions were merged into a single entity, known as the Ashmolean Museum (the name of the part being taken for both archaeological and fine art collections). Arthur Evans became Keeper of the Museum in 1884 (the year this lecture was delivered) and remained so until 1908, the year the University Art Galleries and Ashmolean Museum merged.
‘The Ashmolean as a home of archaeology in Oxford’
An Inaugural lecture given in the Ashmolean Museum November 20, 1884
by Arthur J. Evans, M.A., F.S.A. Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum
... It is no light responsibility, Gentlemen, to be called on to preside over the earliest home of Archaeology in England, but it is an even graver task to be placed on a new Foundation, in charge of the Antiquarian Museum of Oxford at a great crisis in the history of our Archaeological studies. When I remember that, in a few months’ time we may hope to see amongst us a Professor of Classical Archaeology; when I witness the zeal of the new Art Delegates, already commissioned by the University to unify its Archaeological collections; when I survey the already considerable collection of Casts of the noblest Art Monuments of Greece, and hear of courses of lectures on Epigraphy, on Classical Art, on Hellenic Numismatics, and see a new Society already busied with the antiquities of Oxford; when over and above these special manifestations of devotion I feel the widespread sympathy existing amongst those whose studies bring them into less direct connexion with our subject, I feel that I should indeed be guilty of dereliction if I did not use my best endeavours to place the Ashmolean Museum in harmony with these more favourable surroundings.
I have therefore felt it my duty to draw up a comprehensive scheme, which, in the form of a Report to the Ashmolean Visitors, now lies before the University, for ensuring alike the security and the harmonious development of our Archaeological collections, and for making the Museum in which they are housed of the highest possible utility to students, compatible with the space at our disposal.
... For the full utliiization of the space at our disposal much still remains to be done. You are aware, perhaps, that, some years since, a large part of the Museum was diverted to uses little contemplated by its founders. Seventeenth-century Oxford was of opinion that the Museum as it stands was not too large even for the original nucleus of our collections. An Oxford separated from ourselves by a space of time so narrow that it almost seems within earshot, decreed otherwise. Half the building was diverted to the purposes of Examination. With this object a second entrance was obtained by breaking through the wall of what once had been a library, and turning it into a useless lobby. The small room above, traditionally known as Wood’s Study, from the greatest of Oxford antiquaries, was depleted of its books, its manuscripts and its coins, and made a lavatory upon an exhaustive scale. The coins were removed to the Bodleian. The old, original Tradescant gallery, with which Elias Ashmole had adorned the building that was to bear his name, of portraits of past benefactors, and of historic worthies, including amongst them the works of Vandyke and other masters, which had hung upon our walls since 1683, were packed off to a loft at the top of the Old Clarendon. It was actually proposed, indeed, to clear out the whole of our Antiquarian and Ethnological collections, and to convert the building wholly to other uses! And although from some unknown cause this plan fell through, the Ashmolean marble-room continued to be utilized to within the last few days as a warehouse for odd cases and exotic bulls.
My present proposals include the restoration of these perverted spaces to Museum uses. As regards the entrance lobby I propose, at very moderate expense, to convert it into a strong room in which to house our greatest treasures, and, as I hope, our recovered Coins. Wood’s Study, according to my scheme, is to be rescued from the nymphs that preside over cloacas, to become a room for the private use of students, and to serve as the depository, not only for the portfolios containing Mr. Parker’s plans and photographs, but of the nucleus of an Archaeological library. According to my further plans, the noble gallery in which we are assembled, and which served till lately as a Writing School, will be fitted up with exhibition cases to contain not only the smaller Classical antiquities which the University has decided to unite beneath our roof, but, as I still have cause for hoping, a Collection which may claim no unimportant place among the art-treasures of Europe.
By the decision of the University to unify the Archaeological collections, the smaller antiquarian objects, at present scattered amongst our many public Institutions, will find a place within our walls. But on the other hand, it is right to remember that, by the transference of our Anthropological collections to the New Museum, we shall lose many of our oldest and most valuable possessions, and that a large part of our lower room as well as our spacious staircase, will be stripped of its contents. The measure is one alike of practical convenience and necessity. The specimens will pass into good hands, and many of them by association with kindred types in the rich Pitt-Rivers’ collection will better serve the immediate requirements of scientific study. But, while acquiescing in the necessity, I may be at least allowed to give expression to the feeling that the separation of our Archaeological and Anthropological specimens and their transfer to different buildings is in some respects a retrograde measure. I will go further, and say that to carry out such a division according to any exact definition of either Sciences, is an impossible measure. The two studies overlap. No boundary line exists. The same object—to illustrate the laws of Evolution as applied to human arts—is largely shared by both. The Anthropologist will find the same traces of primitive custom and ideas amidst the ruins of the oldest Troy and in existing Polynesian villages. The Archaeologist, exploring the early ages of our own quarter of the globe, turns at every step, for living examples of what he discovers, to the savage races of the most distant Continents. Without this key to their solution the most obvious problems of antiquity would be still consigned to the guess-work of a prae-scientific age, and the vague beating of the air of an unsubstantial philosophy. ...
The intimate connexion between these Sister Sciences has been perhaps more forcibly brought home to me by a discovery that I made whilst recently examining the Archives of the Museum; nothing less namely than the original MS. Catalogue, written in Latin, of the objects actually presented to this Museum by Elias Ashmole in 1683. By means of this interesting document, and by the fortunate fact that the numbers of this original Catalogue answer to certain antique numbers still visible on some of our earliest specimens, but the significance of which had been wholly lost, I have been able to ascertain, in a large number of cases with absolute certainty, what was actually the original nucleus of our Museum. By further comparing this Latin Catalogue of 1683 with the still earlier English catalogue published by John Tradescant, junr., in 1656, and describing the collection as it existed in its original Lambeth repository, then known as Tradescant’s Ark, I have been able to establish the fact that this earliest Ashmolean Catalogue of which, Dr. PLot, our first Keeper, was the author, was simply an amplified description of the collection as it existed a generation before its transference to Oxford. It follows from all this that we have documentary evidence far fuller than has been hitherto suspected, enabling us to trace back a whole series of individual specimens to the truly antediluvian times of old Tradescant’s “Ark.”
The Catalogue which has thus come to light refers both to antiquarian and ethnological objects, and with its aid I have been enabled to set apart an English Ethnological, or if you prefer the term, Anthropological collection, brought together in the first half of the seventeenth century, and which, as I have high authority for saying, will form, with the exception of a small collection in the Museum at Ulm, the earliest collection of the kind in Europe. ... It was not till over two centuries after the date when Tradescant began his collection, that Anthropology was heard of as a branch of scientific study. But the mother-wit of our original Founder had grasped the fact that Like receives illustration from Like all over the World, that the most ancient things smack something of the modern, and that Savagery and Antiquity go ofttimes hand in hand. He put bronze lances of prehistoric Britain side by side with tomahawks from Virginia, and collected together in groups, as General Pitt-Rivers has done with such success in more recent times, it might be the bows and arrows, or it might be the boots and shoes of all mankind from ‘China to Peru.’ ...
For those antiquarian and historical relics from old Tradescant’s Ark, ... I propose to set apart a special Case,--to be a curiosity among Collections and a Museum in Museo. For those more purely Anthropological objects derived from the same source, that we are now called on to transfer to the New Museum, we may at least demand, what will certainly be not refused, that their restored unity as part of our Founder’s original Collection should be maintained inviolate. And in handing over this unique Collection, not I admit without a pang, to our sister Museum, we may consider ourselves entitled to some liberality on their part. As a working principle for the division of the Archaeological and Anthropological objects had after all to be discovered, I have sought to trace it on historical and geographical lines. There is a sense in which the greater part of Archaeology may be called Unwritten History; in some cases even it is actually Written; but in one shape or other it is only a form of historic record. And inasmuch as History, at least from our specific European point of view, concerns in the first line the Quarter of the Globe in which we live, and those Mediterranean and Oriental lands that have influenced its destinies, we may find in the remains of this historic area relics in which the Archaeologist, in our sense of the word, may be considered to have some priority of claim. The records, unwritten though they be, that concern directly our own history as part of the great European family of peoples, are fairly ours; the relics of more remote and savage quarters of the globe may fairly be resigned to those who treat of Man, the Animal, in his more universal aspect.
But while admitting the practical necessity of such a separation in our own case, we must never lose sight of the fact that either study is essential to the right understanding of the other, that both to a great extent cover the same ground, and illustrate the same great laws that govern the development of human arts and institutions. In the earlier Archaeological periods, as I have said, the student turns at every step for his enlightenment to the analogies of existing savage life. it is only amongst the remains of a comparatively high civilization that the distinction between the domains of Archaeologist as the illustrator of history from monuments, and the happy hunting-grounds of the Anthropologist becomes more marked. But the separation of the collections illustrating the two kindred Sciences having become a measure of practical convenience, there is the more reason for our Museum to assert its claims to the various scattered objects and collections throughout the University that may fairly find their place within its walls; and there is the more reason for those entrusted with its direction to take a wide and comprehensive view of those extensive fields of study that will still be left to us.
We are no more relic-worshippers, I trust, and this Museum is not to sink into an ‘Old Curiosity Shop,’ a dingy receptacle for the odds and ends of antiquity and of those objects of which it has been said ‘that they are only now rare because they were always valueless.’ ... Our theme is History,--the history of the rise and succession of human Arts, Institutions, and Beliefs in our historic portion of the globe. There are some periods—like the ‘Paper Age’ in which we live—in which Archaeology may appear the humble handmaid of a book-written History: but there are earlier Ages in which our Science reigns supreme. The unwritten History of Mankind precedes the written, the lore of monuments precedes the lore of books.
Consider for a moment the services rendered within quite recent years by what has been called Prae-historic Archaeology, but which in truth was never more Historic, in widening the horizon of our Past. It has drawn aside the curtain, and revealed the dawn. It has dispelled, like the unsubstantial phantoms of a dream, those preconceived notions as to the origin of human arts and institutions ... before the days of biblical chronology. It has taught us that, at a time when Britain formed still a part of the Continent of Europe with an arctic climate and another fauna; ... Man was already in existence here, fashioning his flint weapons to aid him in his struggle against the sabre-toothed Tiger ... It has ... dragged into the light his bone harpoons and the flint scrapers; it has unearthed in the grottoes of Dordogne the earliest known relics of other than the purest utilitarian art ... it has followed him through the later periods of the Age of Stone in Europe, whetting and polishing his tomahawks, or delicately flaking out his arrow-heads and lance-heads. ... It has shown us the beginnings of metallurgy, characterized in this quarter of the globe by the use of implements of Bronze; ...
... we have as yet too little in our Museum to illustrate these early chapters in the history of human arts. I have grounds indeed for believing that a valuable collection of palaeolithic and other stone implements, may shortly find its way within our walls, and we possess already some praehistoric implements from Denmark and Britain, which enable us to trace the gradual and conservative development of implements of bronze from their original prototypes in stone. Of that later chapter in Archaeological history, however, which specially connects itself with those Oriental regions where Civilization goes back the furthest we have something more to show. ...
But while the Science of Archaeology has thus placed and is still placing the beginnings of Greek Art in their true relation to the civilization of the Older World, it has shown the omnipresence of these Oriental influences, and added up in part the long tale of Hellenic indebtedness; on the other hand it has not assuredly done less to redress the balance, by adding to the still greater indebtedness of Mankind to Hellas. It has recovered some at least of the monuments that men deemed irrevocably lost. ... these and kindred results of exploring energy have combined to give to the age in which we live what is nothing less than a new Revelation of Hellenic Art.
And I think we have some right to say that Oxford too has felt the inspiration of this new Renascence. A faithful band within our walls has taken the first step to render possible the study and teaching of Hellenic Art by bringing together the nucleus of a Cast Collection of Greek Plastic Monuments ... And if the Temple of our Muses may never hope to own these great originals, it is surely of infinite advantage to have before our eyes at least the reproduction of what is itself nothing more than the impress left on Matter by the most Divine in human Genius. ...
... will it be thought inconsistent to proceed at once to urge that, in the case o four own Museum of Antiquities, while never neglecting facsimiles when we cannot procure originals, we should yet, so far as our space and means permit, aim before all things at securing the original works of ancient Art. We have already something to illustrate the more purely classical field of Archaeology, and when the various objects of this class are united within our walls we shall have yet more. ...
Of Hellenic antiquities, as a whole, we have the tolerable nucleus of a collection: but do not let us deceive ourselves. In its present state our collection is unworthy of a great University. Whole classes of objects, and those not the least important, are almost entirely unrepresented. ...
The moderate size as well as the interest and beauty of these figures peculiarly fits them for a Museum of restricted dimensions like the Ashmolean. And here is an instance of the practical application of the principle to which I have already called attention in my Report, that for the welfare of our Archaeological studies here it is absolutely necessary for us to have a small annual sum to spend on the development of our Collections. I am well aware indeed that we must always be in the main dependent on the liberality of private benefactors ... It does not become a great University like ours to depend on charity alone for the promotion of objects inseparably connected with its central studies. And I am confident of the support of all those most keenly and practically interested in the promotion of our Archaeological studies, in saying that we ought ourselves, within certain moderate limits, to be able to foster the development of our Collections, so as to keep pace with the special course of our Archaeological and, I may add, of our Classical and of our Historical series. In certain directions at least, we ought to be able to control our destinies. Those who regard the Museum in which we are assembled as a mere repository of curiosities may rest content with the accidents of benefaction. Those, and they are I am convinced an increasing number, who look to the Ashmolean as a future home for Archaeological research and teaching, will require something more. ... [Talks about the transfer of numismatic collections to the Bodleian Library in 1858 and his proposal that they be transferred back, and the reason ‘Without coins the study of ancient Art and Institutions becomes vague and inexact. On the other hand, without due co-ordination with other branches of antiquities the study of Numismatics suffers in its turn.’]
Before we quit the subject of coins there is one aspect of it which I cannot pass unnoticed. Coins share with architectural monuments the quality of representing in a singular degree the unbroken continuity of the history of Art from the dawn of European civilization to the most modern times. From the clumsy electrum lumps first stamped with the Royal badge of Lydia in the seventh century before our Era, to a sovereign of Victoria fresh from the London Mint, there is no break. There is progress, there is occasional retrogression, but there is no change that cannot be described as gradual. ...
These Saxon coins of Oxford bring vividly before us that aspect of Antiquarian lore which most closely concerns ourselves as Englishmen. Hitherto I have spoken of our Museum mainly in its relation to the study of those privileged periods which we call Classical. But the Ashmolean Museum has also another function as a treasury of old English relics, and in a more special way of those remains which are connected with Oxford as a local centre. And I will ask you never to forget that whatever effort we may henceforth make to atone for our neglect of other branches, it is to our considerable collections of Saxon antiquities that we owe what reputation the Ashmolean possesses as a Museum. ...
As it is, I hope to obtain for our Museum the fine series of Saxon urns and other relics brought to life by the exploring industry of Dr. Rolleston, ...
It is something, I venture to believe, in a University where whole periods, and those not the least important, are divorced from our History School, in a Country where knowledge is stereotyped in the interests of conventionalism, and centralised in the interests of cram, that we should have one Institution at least which, as the home of Archaeology in its widest extent, should be a refuge for neglected studies and forgotten arts. Such, Gentlemen, is the place and no other that I would claim for the Ashmolean Museum. Its contents illustrate, however imperfectly as yet, the continuity of civilised Arts. By the new Ashmolean Statute, I observe that I am free to lecture on any part of the wide field of Archaeology, and I rejoice at the freedom thus accorded me. ... I am painfully conscious indeed of my own inadequacy to survey so vast a subject ...
You may put it down, then, to these unfortunate surroundings if I feel it wholly impossible to confine my interests or studies to one period, or even to recognize barriers when they are pointed out to me. And personally I may console myself with the reflection that, however widely I may range and stray, I shall be still far within the limits chalked out for the ideal Keeper of our Archaeological Museum. In that capacity, at least, it is my business to be Catholic. The more purely classical aspects of Archaeology will be represented by the new Professor, who will shortly take in hand this much neglected branch of University teaching. [1] The Professor of Celtic, the Professor of Anglo-Saxon and Northern Antiquities will continue to illustrate by the light of our earliest writings the memorials of our own and kindred peoples. I cannot doubt that, as the study of Archaeology gains ground here, each several branch, Epigraphy and Numismatics, the History of Art and Architecture, will be represented by Readers and Professors. But it will be my duty to cater for all. And it will, I trust, be also my privilege to put the Ashmolean Museum, as in a special way a treasure-house of our local antiquities, into intimate relations with the Architectural and newly founded Historical Society of Oxford.
It is the function of the Ashmolean Museum to house a representative collection, illustrating the progress of arts and industries in our quarter of the globe, from the rudest palaeolithic implement to the most consummate masterpiece of Hellenic and Italian genius. And if I should describe such a collection, in which every object was selected by knowledge and fine taste ... a collection in which every object forms a link in the development of civilised Arts, and which embraces the subject of Archaeology in its most Catholic and comprehensive aspect,--if I were to enumerate such treasures, you would perhaps accuse me of giving the rein to my imagination. But such a Collection as I have described exists in sober truth, and what will sound incredible to most of you, such a Collection seemed at one time actually within our grasp. Its transference to our Museum was indeed conditional on our placing that Museum in a state to house such treasures in security, and on our fitting out our Upper Gallery with exhibition cases to receive them. More munificent overtures were never made. But the overtures fell through ... as deeds not words were necessary to heal the breach, I have drawn up, in the form of a Report to the Visitors of the Ashmolean, the comprehensive scheme of which I have spoken for the complete rehabilitation of our old Museum; a scheme for insuring its security as a treasury of valuable objects, against fire and thieves; a scheme for its adequate heating, and for the conversion of its waste spaces into a Strong Room and a Students’ Room; a scheme for fitting up with cases the fine Gallery in which we are assembled; and, finally, a proposal for securing in future the liberal stewardship and moderate development of our Archaeological collections. ... It has been accepted by the Visitors of the Museum, and it now lies before the University to accept or to reject it—but not, I trust, to mutilate it, for it forms an organic whole. ...
But let us not deceive ourselves. The arrears of long generations of neglect cannot be atoned for without some sacrifice on our part. We shall need, to carry out the full scheme of rehabilitation and equipment, a preliminary outlay—which may however be spread over two or three years—of £2000; and we shall still need, when this preliminary work is completed, an additional annual grant of not less than £250 as a guarentee for the safe keeping and the scientific development of our collections. ...
[1] Presumably referring to Percy Gardner, first Lincoln and Merton Professor of Classical Archaeology at Oxford (established 1887).
Transcribed by AP October 2012.
We are grateful to Alison Roberts for pointing this document out to us.
