the deeds of individual scientists in the course of our study of
Egyptian culture. We are still, it must be understood, at the
beginnings of history; indeed, we must first bridge over the gap
from the prehistoric before we may find ourselves fairly on the
line of march of historical science.

At the very outset we may well ask what constitutes the
distinction between prehistoric and historic epochs --a
distinction which has been constantly implied in much that we
have said. The reply savors somewhat of vagueness. It is a
distinction having to do, not so much with facts of human
progress as with our interpretation of these facts. When we speak
of the dawn of history we must not be understood to imply that,
at the period in question, there was any sudden change in the
intellectual status of the human race or in the status of any
individual tribe or nation of men. What we mean is that modern
knowledge has penetrated the mists of the past for the period we
term historical with something more of clearness and precision
than it has been able to bring to bear upon yet earlier periods.
New accessions of knowledge may thus shift from time to time the
bounds of the so-called historical period. The clearest
illustration of this is furnished by our interpretation of
Egyptian history. Until recently the biblical records of the
Hebrew captivity or service, together with the similar account of
Josephus, furnished about all that was known of Egyptian history
even of so comparatively recent a time as that of Ramses II.
(fifteenth century B.C.), and from that period on there was
almost a complete gap until the story was taken up by the Greek
historians Herodotus and Diodorus. It is true that the king-lists
of the Alexandrian historian, Manetho, were all along accessible