The third branch is the study of the people. To this I offer a contribution in the chapters devoted to the peasantry and to other inhabitants of Palestine. I trust they may serve to show how rich a field of inquiry is opened to the student among the ancient indigenous population of the Holy Land. In concluding these remarks, I would say a few words on the subject of identification. What is an identification? It is the recovery of an ancient historic site, still known to the natives under its original name, or a modification of that name, though unknown to Europeans. It is evident that the requisites for a satisfactory identification are--first, the suitability of the position to all the known accounts of the place; second, the preservation of all the radical parts of the name; third, in the case of the loss of the name, we require definite indications--such as measured distances, or some connection with existing buildings, or relative position to known sites. The site must show traces of antiquity, and the name must be placed beyond the suspicion of being of recent or spurious origin; the correspondence of the modern and ancient titles must, also, not be merely apparent, but must be radically exact. Failing these requirements, no identification will stand the criticism which is now brought to bear on newly-proposed discoveries. A second question is intimately connected with this subject--namely, the authority of Christian tradition. We should not underrate this valuable means of tracing ancient and sacred sites, which has, we may hope, handed down to us the positions of such holy places as the Grotto of Bethlehem, and Jacob’s well at Shechem; nor lay aside tradition because it _is_ tradition, disregarding one of the few ways of settling the locality of places which were quite as sacred in the fourth century as they are now. On the other hand, a careful and minute inspection of the fourth-century writings cannot but lead to one conclusion: that Christian tradition can be taken only as an indication, not as an authority. Unsupported by other evidence, the tradition is not, in itself, sufficient to fix any site as authentic; yet most valuable hints may often be obtained by a study of these early descriptions of the land. We may take as an example the famous Onomasticon of Eusebius and Jerome. We are now able to point out, on the map, almost every place, the position of which is clearly defined in the Onomasticon by measurement, or by reference to neighbouring places; for in almost every case the name still exists, and these places number about 200 in all.