conspectus of the development of the late "Neolithic" culture of Egypt.
This system of "sequence-dating" was introduced by Prof. Petrie, and is
certainly very useful. It must not, however, be pressed too far or be
regarded as an iron-bound system, with which all subsequent discoveries
must be made to fit in by force. It is not to be supposed that all
prehistoric pottery developed its series of types in an absolutely
orderly manner without deviations or throws-back. The work of man's
hands is variable and eccentric, and does not develop or evolve in an
undeviating course as the work of nature does. It is a mistake, very
often made by anthropologists and archæologists, who forget this
elementary fact, to assume "curves of development," and so forth, or
semi-savage culture, on absolutely even and regular lines. Human culture
has not developed either evenly or regularly, as a matter of fact.
Therefore we cannot always be sure that, because the Egyptian black and
red pottery does not occur in graves with buff and red, it is for
this reason absolutely earlier in date than the latter. Some of the
development-sequences may in reality be contemporary with others instead
of earlier, and allowance must always be made for aberrations and
reversions to earlier types.

This caveat having been entered, however, we may provisionally
accept Prof. Petrie's system of sequence-dating as giving the best
classification of the prehistoric antiquities according to development.
So it may fairly be said that, as far as we know, the black and red
pottery ("sequence-date 30--") is the most ancient Neolithic Egyptian
ware known; that the buff and red did not begin to be used till about
"sequence-date 45;" that bone and ivory carvings were commonest in the
earlier period ("sequence-dates 30-50"); that copper was almost unknown
till "sequence-date 50," and so on. The arbitrary numbers used range
from 30 to 80, in order to allow for possible earlier and later