DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2533#0007
PREFATORY NOTE TO VOLUME II.
In the preface to the first volume of this publication I expressed my regret at the delay
in bringing before the world the results of our excavations which were completed in 1895.
I also regretted that we were obliged to issue the first volume before the completion of
the second. I then thought myself justified in announcing that the second volume would
"follow within a few months." Circumstances over which 1 have had no control have
extended this period of a few months to what will now in all probability exceed a
twelvemonth. As in the case of the first volume I deplore this, not only because it
has kept from the archaeological world the material which we have to offer for study, but
also because full justice cannot be done to my collaborators, especially to Dr. Hoppin
and Mr. Chase, whose work has been completed and in type for several years. Quite apart
from the question of priority with regard to the antiquities we have excavated as well
as the deductions we may have drawn from them, the work of my collaborators may
not be justly appreciated when considered in the light of more recent discoveries, — I
mean those that have been made since our excavations were completed. I have in mind
especially the important discoveries made in Crete, Melos, and the more recent excavations
of Thera. In any case, the complete and final publication of the wrork on those sites was
not available for our purj)oses; while in the case of Crete, notably of Cnossos, the exca-
vations themselves have not been brought to a termination, and the material furnished
does not present itself in a form admitting of final conclusions and general deductions.
Still, it may not seem right that, covering as wre do similar fields of inquiry to that of
recent work on other Aegean sites, we should not have considered at least the suggestions
which they offer in the elaboration of our own material; and it may not be unfair to
criticise us for not having redistributed all the type set years ago and rewritten all that
had been written. But I venture to think that the scientific value of the archaeological
material which we here offer in our publication, and even of the conclusions which we
have drawn from the study of them, is increased by the fact that in our study we have
confined ourselves to what was actually before us in our own material, and to the defi-
nitely published results of the work that had preceded us. Whether our results as
here published are confirmed, rejected, or modified by those of future excavators and
inquirers, our exposition can but gain in its claim to trustworthiness from not having
been biased by premature side-glances at the foreshadowed results of contemporary exca-
vation ; while those who must elaborate the discoveries made since our own will be able
to make the better use of ours in their independent presentation, even if this use should
be to controvert our conclusions.
A similar explanation may be called for with regard to the fact that we have not
In the preface to the first volume of this publication I expressed my regret at the delay
in bringing before the world the results of our excavations which were completed in 1895.
I also regretted that we were obliged to issue the first volume before the completion of
the second. I then thought myself justified in announcing that the second volume would
"follow within a few months." Circumstances over which 1 have had no control have
extended this period of a few months to what will now in all probability exceed a
twelvemonth. As in the case of the first volume I deplore this, not only because it
has kept from the archaeological world the material which we have to offer for study, but
also because full justice cannot be done to my collaborators, especially to Dr. Hoppin
and Mr. Chase, whose work has been completed and in type for several years. Quite apart
from the question of priority with regard to the antiquities we have excavated as well
as the deductions we may have drawn from them, the work of my collaborators may
not be justly appreciated when considered in the light of more recent discoveries, — I
mean those that have been made since our excavations were completed. I have in mind
especially the important discoveries made in Crete, Melos, and the more recent excavations
of Thera. In any case, the complete and final publication of the wrork on those sites was
not available for our purj)oses; while in the case of Crete, notably of Cnossos, the exca-
vations themselves have not been brought to a termination, and the material furnished
does not present itself in a form admitting of final conclusions and general deductions.
Still, it may not seem right that, covering as wre do similar fields of inquiry to that of
recent work on other Aegean sites, we should not have considered at least the suggestions
which they offer in the elaboration of our own material; and it may not be unfair to
criticise us for not having redistributed all the type set years ago and rewritten all that
had been written. But I venture to think that the scientific value of the archaeological
material which we here offer in our publication, and even of the conclusions which we
have drawn from the study of them, is increased by the fact that in our study we have
confined ourselves to what was actually before us in our own material, and to the defi-
nitely published results of the work that had preceded us. Whether our results as
here published are confirmed, rejected, or modified by those of future excavators and
inquirers, our exposition can but gain in its claim to trustworthiness from not having
been biased by premature side-glances at the foreshadowed results of contemporary exca-
vation ; while those who must elaborate the discoveries made since our own will be able
to make the better use of ours in their independent presentation, even if this use should
be to controvert our conclusions.
A similar explanation may be called for with regard to the fact that we have not