"The evidence of the transition from a stone to a bronze age among the Egyptians _appears merely to be_ the use of a stone knife found in their catacombs, and used for the _sacred_ incision into the dead, although they used bronze and iron knives for ordinary purposes, and whereas the _stone_ knife was used by the early _Hebrews_ in circumcision, and by the priests of Montezuma as instruments of human sacrifice."--Wilson's "Archæologia," p. 29. I must now revert to what I at present wish to limit the discussion, viz. Sir J. Lubbock's views on the subject of tradition. Sir John says that history can throw no light upon the question of the stone and bronze age, "because the use of metals has in all cases preceded that of writing." I should like to know whether Sir John is prepared to adhere to this "dictum" under all circumstances, inasmuch as, if he does, he must allow me to trace the use of metals in Assyria even beyond the date at which Professor Rawlinson seems actually to have found evidence of their use; for (pp. 80, 198) "in the ruins of Warka, the ancient Huruk or Erech" (the city of Nimrod) we find inscriptions on bricks of the date of the reign of Urukh or Orchamus, who, according to classical tradition, was the seventh in succession from Bel or Nimrod; which tradition, says Rawlinson (p. 189), "accords very curiously with the information derived from the inscriptions." There is nothing to indicate that the bricks here discovered were the first bricks ever _inscribed_; on the contrary, wherever we find bricks and metals there will be a _prima facie_ presumption as to their previous use.[245] Only upon Sir John Lubbock's "dictum," finding evidence of writing at this date, we must necessarily conclude that the use of metals preceded it. This would bring us well up the seven reigns, and into close contact with the time of Nimrod. [245] It amounts to this, that we are requested first of all to discard and absolutely exclude all that we do know through direct historical evidence of our origin, and to determine it merely by scientific induction. Sir J. Lubbock says in his introduction to Professor Nillson's "Stone Age" (which is a summary of the whole question), "I have purposely avoided all reference to history, all use of historical data, because I have been _particularly anxious to show_ that in archæology we can arrive at definite and satisfactory conclusions, on independent grounds, without any assistance from history; consequently regarding times before writing was invented, and therefore before written history had commenced" (p. xlii.) Compare with _supra_, ch. vii.