Among the Assyrians iron seems to have been in considerable use at an early date, and to have been exported from that country to Egypt, but knives and long chisels or hatchets of bronze were among the objects found at Tel Sifr, in Southern Babylonia. The earliest bronze image to which a date can be assigned appears to be that on which M. Oppert has read the name of Koudourmapouk, King of the Soumirs and Accads,[30] who, according to M. Lenormant, lived about 2100 B.C. Dr. S. Birch reads the name as Kudurmabug (about 2200 B.C.). Others in the British Museum are referred to Gudea, who reigned about 1700 B.C. The mythology and literature of ancient Greece and Rome are so intimately connected, that in discussing the evidence afforded by classical writers it will be needless to separate them, but the testimony of both Greek and Latin authors may be taken indiscriminately, though, of course, the former afford the more ancient evidence. I have already cited much of this evidence in the Introductory Chapter of my book on Ancient Stone Implements, mainly with the view of showing the succession of bronze to stone; on the present occasion I have to re-adduce it, together with what corroborative testimony I am able to procure, in order to show that, along the northern shores of the Mediterranean, philology and history agree as to the priority of the use of bronze for cutting instruments to that of iron. The Greek language itself bears witness to this fact, for the words significant of working in iron are not derived from the name of that metal, but from that of bronze, and the old forms of χαλκεύς and χαλκεύειν remained in use in connection with the smith and his work long after the blacksmith had to a great extent superseded the bronze-founder and the copper-smith in the fabrication of arms and cutlery.[31] An analogous transition in the meaning of words has been pointed out by Professor Max Müller. “The Mexicans called their own copper or bronze _tepuztli_, which is said to have meant originally _hatchet_. The same word is now used for iron, with which the Mexicans first became acquainted through their intercourse with the Spaniards. _Tepuztli_ then became a general name for metal, and when copper had to be distinguished from iron, the former was called red, the latter black _tepuztli_.”[32] I am not certain whether Professor Max Müller still retains the views which he expressed in 1864. He then pointed out[33] that “what makes it likely that iron was not known previous to the separation of the Aryan nations is the fact that its names vary in every one of their languages.” But there is a “name for copper, which is shared in common by Latin and the Teutonic languages, _æs_, _æris_, Gothic _ais_, Old High German _êr_, Modern German _Er-z_, Anglo-Saxon _âr_, English _ore_. Like _chalkós_, which originally meant copper, but came to mean metal in general, bronze or brass, the Latin _æs_, too, changed from the former to the latter meaning; and we can